Christians hold the Bible to be a source of theology that bears significantly on how to live. They acknowledge that the Bible has intrinsic authority and, in an act of submission, attempt to give the Scriptures functional authority over their lives. This essay will explore whether a Christian can condone the practice of euthanasia.

Euthanasia (literally “good death" from the Greek eu thanatos) can be defined as “the intentional killing by act or omission of a person whose life is considered not to be worth living". This is often called “mercy killing". The euthanasia debate is complex, emotive and ethical. It involves the Christian doctrine of God and humanity insofar as many of the arguments challenge fundamental beliefs of divine sovereignty and human dignity.

John Stott, in Issues Facing Christians Today, outlines the basic issues in the euthanasia debate: the value of human life, the spectre of fear, and the right to autonomy. These three issues can be examined by seeking the Biblical perspective on the following questions:

1) What value has human life?
2) What are the main fears which euthanasia is intended to relieve?
3) What right do we have over our own life?

The value of human life

Different conceptions of the value of human life lead to dramatically different conclusions regarding whether euthanasia is permissible. Dr Richard Huxtable, of the University of Bristol, described three categories for understanding the value of human life, which he terms “intrinsic", “instrumental" and “self-determined".

Huxtable describes an instrumental value of life as “a vehicle to other goods", whereby only life of a “sufficiently good quality is valuable". Hence, if a person’s life lacks quality to such an extent that it can no longer provide the means for acquisition of “goods", it is taken to be acceptable that the person’s life can be terminated. This issue is explored in more depth later.

The self-determined view of human life places value with the individual person. The individual can decide what counts for himself, and what does not, in terms of the worth or value of life. Again this will be elaborated upon later.

Huxtable asserts that the intrinsic value of life is “the idea that life itself is valuable and should not intentionally be brought to an end". This is the viewpoint that many Christians hold, and one which has its basis in the Bible. Although non-Christian scholar Professor Dworkin affirms “the intrinsic cosmic importance of human life itself" not on Biblical grounds, the majority who oppose liberalisation of law to permit euthanasia do so from a religious or faith-based perspective.

For Christians, human life is intrinsically valuable and precious. This belief is derived from Scripture’s revelation that God is Creator and mankind bears His image. Genesis 1:27 says “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him". The Christian tradition deems humanity to be the height of creation on the justification that humankind was made imago Dei - in the image and likeness of God. Stott understands this Latin affirmation to mean the unique rational (and moral and social) faculties that humans posses, distinguishing them from the animal kingdom. This approach is found in the patristic writings of Augustine when he says it is by such faculties “through which we are superior to the beasts".

In commenting on Augustine’s approach, Alister McGrath says the following: “the central distinctive element of human nature is its God-given ability to relate to God". This distinctiveness is echoed by Stott when he writes how humanity has a unique “capacity for relationships of love, since God is love". In this sense, one can see that communion or relationship with God - an essential Christian doctrine being that God is personal - stems, at least in part, from the idea that humanity is made in God’s image.

The duality of creation and communion is seen elsewhere in Scripture. Writers, especially in the poetic literature of the Old Testament, affirm God as both Creator - “you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb" (Psalm 139:13, c.f. Job 10:8, 11) - and as a God who sustains and upholds - “upon you have I leaned from before my birth" (Psalm 71:6). The God of the Bible is one who creates mankind for communion.

The book of Isaiah features God speaking to His people, reminding them of His continual sustenance from birth to old age. Again, this portion of Scripture captures the idea of God as giver and sustainer of life:

“Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been borne by me from before your birth, carried from the womb; even to your old age I am he, and to grey hairs I will carry you. I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and will save." (Isaiah 46:3-4).

Given that the Bible speaks of God and mankind in this way, many Christians will oppose euthanasia. Biblically speaking, humanity was made for communion with God, and human life should therefore be respected. Euthanasia implicitly judges that a form or quality of human life is not worthy of the ultimate respect which, according to Scripture, it is due.

When submitting evidence for a report (investigating law relating to assisted suicide) by think tank Demos, a Church of England clergyman and a Christian GP described how euthanasia “devalues human life" and “demeans life and dying" respectively.

Stott implores the Christian to agree with Jean Rostan, the French Biologist, who wrote “I believe that there is no life so degraded, debased, deteriorated or impoverished that it does not deserve respect and is not worth defending with zeal and conviction".

The spectre of fear

In a series of lectures delivered by Professor John Wyatt, consultant neonatal paediatrician, the fears haunting the euthanasia debate were examined. He notes that advocates of euthanasia were motivated in some degree by three fears.

1) The fear of uncontrollable and unbearable pain.
2) The fear of indignity, through the “dehumanising effect of modern medical technology".
3) The fear of dependence.

The latter of these fears concerns the want by many to “write [their] own script and determine [their] own destiny". I will expand on this in greater depth during my discourse on autonomy and self-determinism. Before addressing the remaining two fears, a fourth must be introduced. This, as Stott notes, is experienced by those opposing euthanasia and is the fear that their doctor might become their killer.

Although this fourth fear may sound hyperbolic, underlying it are some significant ethical principles relating to the nature of medicine, the role of the doctor, and the need to protect the vulnerable.

In ethical discussions relating to euthanasia it is often contested, from those opposing the practice, that a doctor ought not intentionally kill his patient. The role of the doctor is to heal. Medicine is a life-orientated profession and is dedicated to health preservation, rehabilitation and aiding recovery. The essence of this service is often said to be captured in the Hippocratic Oath:

“I will use treatment to help the sick according to my judgement and ability, but I will never use it to injure or wrong them. I will not give poison to anyone, even though asked to do so".

Doctors, it is argued, are the servants of life. The relationship between the doctor and patient, which is based on trust, is undermined when the doctor becomes a killer. A number of doctors, according to Demos, reject “the idea that hastening a patient’s death could be a legitimate part of a doctor’s role".

Demos noted that protecting the vulnerable is another key issue, and that many feel that a liberalisation in the law of euthanasia would “make disabled people vulnerable to societal prejudice and perceived pressure to end their lives". If a person has lost their capacity and function, John Stott argues that one should guard oneself against “selfish rationalisations", where the real reason one says that a person’s incompetency is unbearably burdensome is because that person would be a burden for them.

Christians hold that the “sanctity" (or intrinsic value) of human life is the crucial concern, whilst many others focus on “quality" of human life. Here, one returns to Huxtable’s “instrumental" categorisation - human life is value only if it is of a sufficient quality. Life is sometimes not worth living. Stott is quick to ask “who can presume to decide this?" Alison Davis - a self-described “happy spina bifida adult" - puts forward a moving argument:

“I can think of few concepts more terrifying than saying that certain people are better off dead, and may therefore be killed for their own good."

As previously discussed, the Bible speaks of the intrinsic value of human life. Hence, the Christian would not accept that value of life and quality of life correlate to such an extent that termination of life may be permissibly introduced.

The Christian Scriptures teach a powerful message about the importance of caring for the poor and vulnerable. Jesus proclaims, in Luke 4:18-19, that he is the fulfilment of what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, who said there will be one who comes to “proclaim good news to the poor...liberty to the captives...recovering of sight to the blind". These famous words from the beginning of Isaiah 61 are often cited by Christians to affirm Jesus’ profound concern for the spiritually and physically impoverished. These same Christians use the words as a model which they can imitate. The Christian worldview states that all life, regardless of its supposed quality, is worthy of love, care and protection.

Returning to the two remaining fears concerning the process of dying. Euthanasia, in these instances, is for the purpose of relieving the fear of pain and indignity. The practice appeals to suffering as a basis for its permissibility, whereby euthanasia is a compassionate response to the suffering. The “compassion argument" is often deployed by proponents of euthanasia, but Baroness Onora O’Neill’s evidence to Demos criticised these “fantasised conceptions of compassion".

The Christian charity CARE use the slogan “real compassion never kills" to encapsulate it’s belief that the correct constitution of a compassionate response to suffering is to provide excellent palliative and hospice care. The Royal College of Surgeons give a similar testimony when they say that “a compassionate response...should involve empathy and working hard to control symptoms and not simply hasten death". They also noted how “unusual" it has become to encounter a patient “whose symptoms are truly unmanageable". The increased developments of palliative and social care to diminish pain and indignity render the “compassion argument" as redundant. Hospice doctor Robert Twycross (who is also a Christian) said that he tells his patients, “Not only will we enable you to die with dignity, but we will enable you to live before you die".

Therefore, a resolution often expounded by the Christian is that more should be invested into palliative care. The charity Help The Hospices report that £1.4 million is spent on hospice care every day. Of this large sum, only £477,000 comes from government sources, leaving hospices to raise £949,000 per day. John Stott also makes a direct appeal to the individual Christian by encouraging them to be “actively involved in giving love and support to terminally ill patients at home or in their nearest hospice".

Due to developments in palliative care, most pain can now be managed and controlled. Therefore most of those who deem euthanasia to be permissible now do so with an objective concerned with an individualistic, philosophical commitment to human autonomy.

The right to autonomy

As previously noted, Huxtable’s “self-determined" conception of understanding the value of human life permits euthanasia on the grounds of the individual’s right to autonomy. Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association has stated that “individual autonomy should take primacy" in the euthanasia debate. In other words, rational and competent human beings should have the right to make their own decisions and dispose of their own life.

The Christian will argue that whilst God created humanity as rational and volitional beings, humankind is also accountable to God for the decisions it makes. An essential feature of humanity is that they live by choice and not by coercion, but this freedom is not unlimited. Stott says, “We find our freedom only in living according to our God-given nature, not in rebellion against it."

The Christian faith notes that no person can be fully autonomous. Humankind lives in a community, where one person’s decisions can inadvertently impact somebody else. Reverend Professor Gill highlights, specifically with respect to the euthanasia debate, that “the broader social impact of seemingly ‘autonomous’ actions must not be ignored".

Ultimately, asserting the primacy of individual autonomy challenges the central Christian doctrine of God’s sovereignty. Brian Rowney of the Independent Methodist Churches states that the Christian faith understands “the taking of life as taking what belongs to God". This opinion was echoed by an anonymous GP submitting evidence to Demos who said, “as a Christian I believe that God gives life and God takes it away". This idea is poignantly expressed in Job 1:21: “The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away".

To understand the sovereignty of God is, according to Stott, to understand God as the “creator, giver, sustainer and taker-away of life". God speaks to the people of Israel through Moses in Deuteronomy 32:39 by saying, “there is no god beside me: I kill and I make alive". Likewise, 1 Samuel 2:6 says “The LORD kills and brings to life". Hence, the taking of life is seen to be a divine prerogative, and for humanity to take upon himself such a role is arrogance or, as Stott says, “hubris, presumption before God".

Contemporary culture highly idealises the concept of independence. In the Christian faith dependence upon God is emphasised, and seen to be good. Jesus chose little children as a model of humility, whereby the children are dependent upon parents. Similarly, the Christian humbly acknowledges their dependence upon God.

Another Christian belief is that life is a gift from God. Being only recipients, and not owners of our lives, the Christian sees himself as a steward and guardian of life. Part of this role entails caring for the vulnerable and curing the sick.

Pronouncing objective conclusions in relation to the permissibility of euthanasia is difficult given the complexity of the debate. Furthermore, it must be noted that to explore the issue through the lens of Scripture will, in some sense, narrow the debate. Additionally, Christian scholars may significantly disagree with each other over certain aspects of the debate, despite both looking to the Bible to illuminate the issue and guide any conclusion. Lastly, it not all Christians hold that the Scriptures must be adhered to so meticulously that it affects every aspect of their lives.

To conclude then, the Christian who seeks to embrace a Biblical worldview cannot condone the practice of euthanasia. The Bible seems to outline some values and beliefs which go against its practice. Scripture describes human life as intrinsically valuable, calls for compassion that does not kill, and testifies of a sovereign God.

Bibliography

Attfield, R. (2012) Ethics: an Overview. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
CARE (2010) End of Life Issues. http://www.care.org.uk/advocacy/end-of-life. Last accessed: 29/10/2013.
Dunnett, A. (1999) Euthanasia: The Heart Of The Matter. London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd.
Dworkin, G., Frey, R. G., and Bok, S. (1998) Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide: For And Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McGrath, A. E. (2011) Christian Theology: An Introduction. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. 5th edn.
Melendez, P of The Cambridge Union Society (2012) The Debate on Euthanasia Need Not be About Life Vs. Death. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/the-cambridge-union-society/euthanasia-right-to-die-the-debate-on-euthanasia-_b_1338973.html. Last Accessed: 27/10/2013.
NHS (2012) Euthanasia and assisted suicide. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/euthanasiaandassistedsuicide/Pages/Introduction.aspx. Last accessed: 29/10/2013.
Pitcher, G. (2011) Euthanasia: compassion or consumerism? Theos Think Tank. http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2011/10/07/euthanasia-compassion-or-consumerism. Last Accessed: 27/10/2013
Stott, J. (2006) Issues Facing Christians Today. Michigan: Zondervan. 4th edn.
The ethical basis of the assisted dying debate in The commission on assisted dying (2011). London: Demos. www.demos.co.uk.
Thompson, M. (2003) Teach Yourself Ethics. London: Hodder Arnold. 2nd edn.
Hope, T. (2004) Medical Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Scripture quotations are from The ESV Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version), 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.