Christian Perspectives on Euthanasia Essay

Christian PerspectivesRoger Crook captures the Christian perspective on euthanasia by posing the question in verges of how we c are for the dying. What do we do for the soulfulness who is comatose with no hope of recovery How do we care for the termin eachy ill person whose remaining days are increasingly agonisingly painful? The Human organism is non simply a biological entity just now a person, in the image of paragon and Christ. Death marks the end of a personhood in this bread and butter.Biblical teachings prohibit pull downing the Sixth Commandment states You shall not kill both in terms of murder and involuntary manslaughter. Life should not be violated, while the prohibition of killing seems to be a virtuous absolute of Christianity there are exceptions for warfare and self-defence. on that point are examples in the record book where the sacrifice of life is considered virtuous Greater making love has no man than this That a man lay down his life for his friends Th e Bible does not prohibit all taking of life in all circumstances, although Christians absorb traditionally considered taking ones own life to be wrongRoman Catholic PerspectivesAt the Second Vati send packing world-wide Council, the Roman Catholic Church condemned crimes again life such(prenominal) as any type of murder, genocide ,abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-annihilation Life is sacred and a gift from God, which they are called upon to preserve and compel fruitful To take a life opposes Gods love for that person, and rejects the duty of a person to live life according to Gods plan. In the same declaration, the Roman Catholic Church do it clear that it was wrong to ask somebody for an assisted death, and that an individual cannot apply to such a death For it is a question of the violation of the betoken law, an offence against the dignity of the military man person, a crime against life, and an attack on valetity The kind of autonomy that John Stuart Mill argues for is rejected by the Roman Catholic Church. We simply dont have that freedom, because we are made by God for the purpose of loving God.A transparent argument is made about suffering and its role in Christian theology. Jesus died in pain on the cross, and human suffering at the end of life connects us to the suffering that Jesus felt. This does not hatch that Christians should refuse to take painkillers or should dynamically seek pain, but it does consecrate suffering the possibility of having a positive effect on the individual. It provides the transpose that he or she may grow closer to God. Thomas forest writes that suffering can seem meaningless, is terrible and is never sought, it is not the pommel evil it can be an occasion for spiritual growth and it can have moral effects on those in attendance. It can have meaning in the context of a life lived in faith.Protestant PerspectivesLiberalJoseph Fletcher is an spry advocate of the patients right on to de on the basis that Christian faith emphasises love for ones associate degree human being, and that death is not the end for Christians. Acts of kindness may tangle euthanasia, for instance when a human being is dying in agony, as a response to human need. Fletchers argument for euthanasia is basically based around four points 1. The quality of life is to be set over biological life 2. Death is a friend to someone with a debilitating illness 3. All medical interventions place human will against nature and extraordinary means 4. Special equipment and unnecessary operation are not morally required for a person who is terminally ill People are prepared to face death and postulate death as preferable to continuous suffering for the patient and the family There is no distinction between our response to a suffering beast or human. There is no difference between passive and active euthanasia as the result is the same.ConservativeRepresented by Arthur Dyck he thinks an act of kindness can result in wi thdrawing treatment but not doing something actively to bring about death. Permitting some acts of active euthanasia, such as in the case of severelydisable children, seems to be creating a class of human beings who are treated as less valued. He argues that a mentally retarded child is not dying, is not in pain an cannot choose to die. Since killing is generally wrong it should be unploughed to as narrow a range of exceptions as possible plot mercy is a moral obligation, killing is never as mercy. The term mercy killing is a contradiction and when we use the term to release the killing of the disabled or the mentally incompetent, we fail to care for the most(prenominal) needy in the community, which is a fundamental moral duty. Dycks captivate is in keeping with traditional Christian thought, and most Christian theologians, which holds that active, strike help in the taking of human life is prohibited.Whereas voluntary euthanasia, wilful by a rational, legally competent pers on, has ben permitted by some theologians, active euthanasia in which the person plays no role, has been condemned by the majority of Christian thinkers. The ethical approaches to the problem taken by Christians sometimes reflect a move from general principles to specific applications (the sanctity of life to the prohibition of euthanasia) and likewise at times the concern about the sinful nature of human beings and their unreliability at making good decisions through the use of right reason