Talk:Euthanasia
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theEuthanasia article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines ·PubMed ·Cochrane ·DOAJ ·Gale ·OpenMD ·ScienceDirect ·Springer ·Trip ·Wiley ·TWL |
 | The subject of this article iscontroversial and content may be indispute. When updating the article,be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them.Content must be written from aneutral point of view. Includecitations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
| This page isnot a forum for general discussion aboutEuthanasia. Any such commentsmay be removed orrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions aboutEuthanasia at theReference desk. |
 | Please staycalm andcivil while commenting or presenting evidence, anddo not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached,other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Asummary of this article appears indeath. |
 Archives | ||||
| ||||
This page has archives. Sections older than60 days may be automatically archived byLowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
 | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= or|ans= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
Kitluvsmangos4ever (talk)21:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to recognize the complexity of bioethical subjects in Christianity because although there is simply one sacred text that encapsulates the Christian ideology, there is no distinct set of rules that every Christian could agree upon. Rather, different groups or denominations may interpret their faith in dissimilar manners, thus creating the broad and varied perspectives of ethical issues in Christianity.1
As God is the creator of life in Christian belief, it is believed that the followers of Christianity are to “submit to what God had ordained” or willed.2 Therefore, one’s illness or death is viewed to be brought upon by God in accordance with his plan. Consequently, by interfering with the end of life, doctors were once believed to be defying God’s will. However, with time, this belief has evolved and doctors are now viewed as fulfilling God’s will by healing the sick.2
Based on research, there is no direct discussion about the topics of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide in the Christian bible. Rather, the bible indirectly refers such topics through the discussion of creation, human value, and suffering/death.3 Creation- As God is the sole creator of the universe, “any human interference with hastening the end of life” would be considered a violation of God’s will. Human value- According to the bible, those who do not value God’s creation of human life will face consequences upon God’s judgement. Therefore, killing and the taking of life is a deliberate action that “should only occur at God’s command”. Suffering/Death- Suffering is seen as consequence from God for turning away from him. On the other hand, the bible describes suffering to sometimes be inexplainable. Therefore, the bible explains that life, along with suffering and death, “occurs along the path to a better future of eternal life without suffering”.
Furthermore, the rationale behind opposition to euthanasia slightly differs between various Christian denominations: Roman Catholic Perspectives- The Roman Catholic Church condemns euthanasia and assisted suicide as morally wrong. As paragraph 2324 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator". Because of this, per the Declaration on Euthanasia and the Second Vatican Council, the practice of euthanasia is unacceptable within the Church.[73] Eastern Orthodox Perspectives- The Orthodox Church in America, along with other Eastern Orthodox Churches, also opposes euthanasia stating that "euthanasia is the deliberate cessation of human life, and, as such, must be condemned as murder."[74] Therefore, this denomination believes that accepting illness according to God’s plan allows for spiritual growth to take place.3 Protestant Perspectives- Among Protestant denominations, the Episcopal Church passed a resolution in 1991 opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide stating that the act is “mistaken, deceptive, and evil” and that it is "morally wrong and unacceptable to take a human life to relieve the suffering caused by incurable illnesses."3 [74] Other non-Catholic churches which oppose euthanasia include:•Assemblies of God[75]•The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[76]•Church of the Nazarene[77]•Evangelical Lutheran Church in America[78]•Presbyterian Church in America[79]•Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod[80]•Reformed Church in America[81]•Salvation Army[82]•Seventh-day Adventist Church[75]•Southern Baptist Convention[83]•United Methodist Church[74]
Partially in favor ofThe Church of England accepts passive euthanasia under some circumstances, but is strongly against active euthanasia, and has led to the opposition against recent attempts to legalize it.[84] The United Church of Canada accepts passive euthanasia under some circumstances, but is in general against active euthanasia, with growing acceptance now that active euthanasia has been partly legalized in Canada.[85] The Waldensians take a liberal stance on Euthanasia and allow the decision to lie with individuals.[86][87]
Works Cited1.Widdows, H (2007) Christian approaches to bioethics. In Richard E. Ashcroft, Angus Dawson, Heather Draper, and John R. McMillan (eds.) Principles of Heath Care Ethics Second Edition. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley and Sons. pp. 99 - 107.2.Badham, P. (n.d.). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review - sage journals. SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT THE VALIDITY OF VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA?https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0739456X17723971 3.Grove, G., Lovell, M., & Best, M. (2022). Perspectives of Major World Religions regarding Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of religion and health, 61(6), 4758–4782.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-022-01498-5Karma paper
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.M.Bitton (talk)23:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] | Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= or|ans= parameter tono to reactivate your request. |
Change this Section:
ChristianityBroadly againstThe Roman Catholic Church condemns euthanasia and assisted suicide as morally wrong. As paragraph 2324 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator". Because of this, per the Declaration on Euthanasia, the practice is unacceptable within the Church.[73] The Orthodox Church in America, along with other Eastern Orthodox Churches, also opposes euthanasia stating that "euthanasia is the deliberate cessation of human life, and, as such, must be condemned as murder."[74]
Many non-Catholic churches in the United States take a stance against euthanasia. Among Protestant denominations, the Episcopal Church passed a resolution in 1991 opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide stating that it is "morally wrong and unacceptable to take a human life to relieve the suffering caused by incurable illnesses."[74] Protestant and other non-Catholic churches which oppose euthanasia include:
Assemblies of God[75]The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[76]Church of the Nazarene[77]Evangelical Lutheran Church in America[78]Presbyterian Church in America[79]Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod[80]Reformed Church in America[81]Salvation Army[82]Seventh-day Adventist Church[75]Southern Baptist Convention[83]United Methodist Church[74]
To:
Christianity It is important to recognize the complexity of bioethical subjects in Christianity because although there is simply one sacred text that encapsulates the Christian ideology, there is no distinct set of rules that every Christian could agree upon. Rather, different groups or denominations may interpret their faith in dissimilar manners, thus creating the broad and varied perspectives of ethical issues in Christianity.1
As God is the creator of life in Christian belief, it is believed that the followers of Christianity are to “submit to what God had ordained” or willed.2 Therefore, one’s illness or death is viewed to be brought upon by God in accordance with his plan. Consequently, by interfering with the end of life, doctors were once believed to be defying God’s will. However, with time, this belief has evolved and doctors are now viewed as fulfilling God’s will by healing the sick.2
Based on research, there is no direct discussion about the topics of euthanasia or physician assisted suicide in the Christian bible. Rather, the bible indirectly refers such topics through the discussion of creation, human value, and suffering/death.3 Creation- As God is the sole creator of the universe, “any human interference with hastening the end of life” would be considered a violation of God’s will. Human value- According to the bible, those who do not value God’s creation of human life will face consequences upon God’s judgement. Therefore, killing and the taking of life is a deliberate action that “should only occur at God’s command”. Suffering/Death- Suffering is seen as consequence from God for turning away from him. On the other hand, the bible describes suffering to sometimes be inexplainable. Therefore, the bible explains that life, along with suffering and death, “occurs along the path to a better future of eternal life without suffering”.
Furthermore, the rationale behind opposition to euthanasia slightly differs between various Christian denominations: Roman Catholic Perspectives- The Roman Catholic Church condemns euthanasia and assisted suicide as morally wrong. As paragraph 2324 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator". Because of this, per the Declaration on Euthanasia and the Second Vatican Council, the practice of euthanasia is unacceptable within the Church.[73] Eastern Orthodox Perspectives- The Orthodox Church in America, along with other Eastern Orthodox Churches, also opposes euthanasia stating that "euthanasia is the deliberate cessation of human life, and, as such, must be condemned as murder."[74] Therefore, this denomination believes that accepting illness according to God’s plan allows for spiritual growth to take place.3 Protestant Perspectives- Among Protestant denominations, the Episcopal Church passed a resolution in 1991 opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide stating that the act is “mistaken, deceptive, and evil” and that it is "morally wrong and unacceptable to take a human life to relieve the suffering caused by incurable illnesses."3 [74] Other non-Catholic churches which oppose euthanasia include: • Assemblies of God[75] • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[76] • Church of the Nazarene[77] • Evangelical Lutheran Church in America[78] • Presbyterian Church in America[79] • Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod[80] • Reformed Church in America[81] • Salvation Army[82] • Seventh-day Adventist Church[75] • Southern Baptist Convention[83] • United Methodist Church[74]
Partially in favor of The Church of England accepts passive euthanasia under some circumstances, but is strongly against active euthanasia, and has led to the opposition against recent attempts to legalize it.[84] The United Church of Canada accepts passive euthanasia under some circumstances, but is in general against active euthanasia, with growing acceptance now that active euthanasia has been partly legalized in Canada.[85] The Waldensians take a liberal stance on Euthanasia and allow the decision to lie with individuals.[86][87]
Works Cited 1. Widdows, H (2007) Christian approaches to bioethics. In Richard E. Ashcroft, Angus Dawson, Heather Draper, and John R. McMillan (eds.) Principles of Heath Care Ethics Second Edition. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley and Sons. pp. 99 - 107. 2. Badham, P. (n.d.). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review - sage journals. SHOULD CHRISTIANS ACCEPT THE VALIDITY OF VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA?https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0739456X17723971 3. Grove, G., Lovell, M., & Best, M. (2022). Perspectives of Major World Religions regarding Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of religion and health, 61(6), 4758–4782.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-022-01498-5Karma paperKitluvsmangos4ever (talk)14:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore using the
{{Edit semi-protected}} template.Lightoil (talk)12:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]"Buddhism
Since enlightenment is a major goal in the Buddhist religion, human existence is highly valued and therefore protected. In the Buddhist belief of rebirth and karma, one has infinite lifetimes until the process is completed through enlightenment.[90] Here, it is taught that one must experience one’s own karma as failing to do so could lead to other consequences.
In Buddhism, all disorders originate from the mental environment due to negative states of mind. This is because illness and other inevitable realities are linked to one’s karma.[90]
The decision made by a physician to ease the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients is viewed negatively in Buddhism. Rather, they view this act carried out by physicians as “harm intended as help”.[90] Moreover, if one’s karma (suffering) were to be intentionally disrupted, that suffering would then be experienced again in another life. Providing large doses of narcotics to a terminally-ill patient is heavily looked down upon as it does not allow for the patient to “leave in a peaceful manner”. Simply put, Buddhism advocates for “hospice care, not euthanasia”.[90] Ultimately, Buddhism teaches its followers to “accept and work with all aspects of life, including death”.[90]
Buddhism also teaches that physicians perform the act because the patient’s suffering and pain disturb the doctor’s mind. The physician then projects this disturbance onto the patient themselves through the act of euthanasia.[91] Therefore, for the benefit of both the patient and the physician, euthanasia is an unacceptable deed in Buddhism.
These Buddhist ethics are put in place to not only respect the tenants and virtues of Buddhism but also to prevent any selfish desires that either the family or physician may have.[91] The goal here is to protect both the patient as well as their enlightenment, and rejecting euthanasia adheres to this Buddhist goal."
Citations[90].Cite error:There are<ref> tags on this page without content in them (see thehelp page). Euthanasia: A Buddhist perspective - JSTOR. Euthanasia: A Buddhist Perspective. (n.d.).https://www.jstor.org/stable/27505857[91].Cite error:There are<ref> tags on this page without content in them (see thehelp page). Chaicharoen, P., & Ratanakul, P. (n.d.). Letting-Go or Killing: Thai Buddhist Perspectives on Euthanasia. Eubios Ethics Institute -.https://www.eubios.info/EJ82/ej82c.htmKitluvsmangos4ever (talk)22:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who can edit this locked page, please adjust the lead sentence to reflect that both the term and concept of "euthanasia" is not strictly proscribed to "ending pain and suffering" (which ultimately is a subjective matter). It alsofundamentally includesinvoluntary euthanasia (as introduced, belatedly, in paragraph three), in which a subject's life is ended without consent (effectively to relieve the "pain and suffering" of whomever is responsible for it, whether individually, collectively, or by government policy.
Thisfundamental distinction needs to be worked into thedefining term used in the lead sentence, which otherwise, simply, misleads (by offering an over-narrow description of the term without indicating a very different interpretation of the term exists). Different enough that it is construed in many instances asmurder, and in others a matter of government policy (in one form or another) interpreted by others outside it variously as murder on the small scale and "genocide" or related concepts on the large.2601:196:180:DC0:566:1463:F27E:721F (talk)04:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]