Life and Dying
The interpretation of religion and worldviews leads to a series of dilemmas. Humanity thrives through the belief in morals that are developed according to a group of people who have chosen to believe what is right according to them. For example, Christians choose to believe that God is the sole giver of life and that no one should find a reason to take away life. The morals held by Christians have, however, been associated with several dilemmas witnessed in the field of healthcare. Christians have always struggled to come into terms with the practice of euthanasia in the healthcare field. The fact that euthanasia involves taking away life has led it into harsh criticism from Christians who have termed it as being unethical. However, some Christians have found themselves reevaluating their position on the idea of euthanasia since it involves the victim’s consent, and Christianity advocates for the respect of people’s rights and opinions. The case of George presents a situation that causes a dilemma in the healthcare field since the choice of euthanasia is viewed differently. Generally, euthanasia stops the suffering of the patient but involves taking away their life.
The fall of humanity in the Garden of Eden has been viewed as the basis of interpretation for the ideologies present in Christianity. Insufficient understanding of the idea of God on suffering leads to dilemmas with people presenting different interpretations concerning suffering. First, suffering is seen as the idea of God to built strength in the victim’s faith (Point, 2018). In George’s case, his suffering could be seen as a test as to whether he was ready to believe in God for healing, or he was tired of holding for a faith that was not leading him into healing. If George chooses euthanasia, Christians who hold the interpretation of suffering as a test of faith will take George as a failure who had weak faith. The other perspective held is that suffering is a way of paying for the sins that one has committed and that God’s punishment is responsible for the suffering. The fall of human beings led to God’s anger, and suffering was brought to the earth as a way of punishment for disobedience. Some Christians believe that the suffering was meant to continue and that God still uses suffering as punishment for humans’ misdoings. Although the second interpretation is founded on some evidence from the Bible, the first interpretation has been widely accepted. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Christians are meant to believe that death does not mark the end of life as there is a resurrection at the end of time, although the resurrection will be determined by some factors. First, the resurrection will mark the transition to either eternal happiness or eternal suffering. The determinant of the type of resurrection is said to be that individual’s relationship with God before death. People who die in sin are believed to be destined for eternal suffering, while those who are righteous are promised an eternity in heaven. The choice of euthanasia could be triggered by several factors that may be considered by George (Koodamara, Prabhu, Thomas & Afza, 2018). First, resurrection offers a chance for coming back to life and so euthanasia is not the end of life. Secondly, resurrection leaves behind suffering if George dies a righteous man. Besides, death is considered a peaceful rest as one awaits resurrection, and George could consider the option. However, the idea that suffering will only be taken away from people who are righteous at death brings forth another issue. If euthanasia is not morally acceptable, then George will have died in sin and could be destined for more suffering. Generally, George’s final decision will depend on the depth of his Christian background and whether he is willing to forego the opportunity of enjoying the miracle of healing.
The value of an individual’s life in Christianity is said to be determined by God. Christians believe that God has a purpose for everyone and does not let people determine their purpose. God’s role in giving the purpose of a person’s life links with the idea that life is sacred and God-given. Therefore, the decision on the end of life should be left at God’s discretion. Such an ideology will stop George from ever thinking about euthanasia if his background is founded on Christianity (De Villiers, 2016). Besides, death in Christianity means a transition from mortality to eternity, and no one else, except God, knows when a person is ready for eternity. Also, the Ten Commandments that explain the conduct of humans prohibit killing. Also, Christians are expected to borrow a leaf from Jesus Christ, who went through suffering that human beings could not go through and did not give up. Therefore, giving up on suffering through euthanasia is an excuse that cannot be upheld in Christianity. Besides, Jesus rejected all attempts to ease his suffering, such as the gall and wine, which were presented at the cross. Jesus understood that suffering was inevitable, and his triumph would be measured in terms of the suffering he went through. Christians are expected to let the entire process of death take its course because an attempt to end life before time is similar to suicide, which is against the moral standards of Christianity.
One of the dilemmas that Christians get is in is to determine whether they are obliged to contribute positively to society. George is sad that his condition could hinder him from being productive and that he will only be a liability to the people around him. However, God promises Christians that he is the provider and that the only thing needed is the hope of the Christians. Therefore, George needs to stop worrying about his benefit to living and seek to understand his purpose in life. The idea of euthanasia has remained contentious due to lack of biblical evidence allowing it and that Christians strongly believe that it is against God’s commandments.
Euthanasia has continued to be contentious because it falls outside the biblical ideologies and is seen as a way of escaping suffering. Some Christians have maintained that euthanasia falls among the many laws that God allowed men to develop with the promise that he will accept them. However, a disclaimer is made that the laws that man develops should go in line with the commandments that God gave to humanity. Since God is responsible for giving life, the allowance for ending life is eliminated as it goes against the responsibilities of God. Besides, life is believed to be sacred, such that no reason can be given whatsoever to justify ending life. The dignity of human beings is held in their likeness to God, and the dying process is believed to be spiritual (Montaguti, Jox, Zwick & Picozzi, 2018). When a person is killed prematurely, the spiritual death process is interfered with, and the spirit is interrupted in the process of transiting efficiently to the maker. Also, the dignity of humanity dictates that human beings are equal and that no one should determine the fate of another human being. However, Christianity also advocates for the respect of the individual’s rights, and that includes respecting their opinions. When an individual feels that their treatment is causing unnecessary burden to the people around them, the treatment can be withdrawn to trigger the process of euthanasia. The process, however, needs to have some specified omissions and exceptions to make it effective and not people’s easier way of committing suicide.
Christianity is based on selfishness, and euthanasia should not be a difficult thing to allow since it promotes a certain extent of selflessness. Generally, relatives to ailing people are conservative on whether they should accept to part ways with their loved ones hence fail to consider euthanasia as an option. The idea can be explained b the life-saving system that sees patients being forced to stay alive despite their bodies have given up. George’s case is bound to be voluntary, and his opinion needs to be respected. Since Christianity is founded on the belief of equality for all people, respect for other peoples’ opinions is therefore mandatory (Montaguti, Jox, Zwick & Picozzi, 2018). The respect for George’s opinion will include accepting that burdensome treatment is not necessary and that he should be allowed to die peacefully. If an individual is allowed to forgo treatment, then the idea is similar to euthanasia, and no judgment should be passed to George for his decisions. My background in Christianity will play a crucial role in the opinion I hold for George’s case.
A Christian worldview is supposed to go hand in hand with the ideologies of Christianity. I understand the pain of suffering, but I would choose another option over euthanasia if I was in George’s situation. If a healing miracle is bound to happen, then it will happen before George’s death if he chooses to forego medication. My belief in miracles does not allow me to believe in euthanasia, as it shows that a Christian has run out of faith. Being patient is essential in waiting on the Lord to pass his healing hand. Therefore, direct euthanasia might not be my option, but I might forego medication to avoid burdening the people around me with unnecessary treatment. The main reason behind my difficulty in making a choice will be based on the fact that I believe in the value of life but also do not like it when people are suffering.
In sum, the case of George presents a situation that causes a dilemma in the healthcare field since the choice of euthanasia is viewed differently. Insufficient understanding of the idea of God on suffering leads to dilemmas with people presenting different interpretations concerning suffering, and George is a victim. Euthanasia may not be the best option for an ailing patient, but Christians should be bold enough to accept the opinions of other people.
References
De Villiers, D. E. (2016). May Christians request medically assisted suicide and euthanasia?. HTS Theological Studies, 72(4), 1-9.
Koodamara, N. K., Prabhu, N., Thomas, B., & Afza, N. (2018). Euthanasia: Indias major religious points of views. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development, 9(10), 962-965.
Montaguti, E., Jox, R., Zwick, E., & Picozzi, M. (2018). From the concept of “good death” in the ancient world to the modern concept of “euthanasia”. Med Histor, 2, 104-108.
Point, M. B. (2018). Ian Gibson. 2017. Suffering and Hope: Christianity and Ethics among the Newars of Bhaktapur. Kathmandu: Ekta Books.