Christianity Bioethics

The issue facing George falls under bioethics. Bioethics sets itself the task of evaluating scientific achievements, developing criteria and moral principles, and gives a conclusion as to whether what is achievable with the help of science is at the same time moral from the moral point of view and does it benefit people. Secular bioethics sees biological beings in humans. It seeks to improve the quality of life and at the same time tries to give such an assessment of the problems that most satisfy the material and social needs of people. However, Christians have different perspective on what should be done. Similarly, Buddhist will have their unique perspective.  It is the goal of the paper to explore how Christianity and Buddhism would interpret George’s case.

Christian bioethics sees people not only as they are, but also as they are called to become – gods by grace. Christian bioethics is not limited to this earthly life and the needs of humanity in this life, but extends in the future, which is considered more important. Bioethics is considered … as one of the forms of protection of the god-like dignity and freedom of the individual … and aims to protect public morality and the gift of God – life – from human arbitrariness and lawlessness. It defines the conditions necessary for every believer to realize and complete his life in a Christian manner, reveals the boundaries between medical intervention caused by medical necessity, and the actions of people claiming to “put themselves in the place of God, changing and improving “His creation.

Life is granted to man; she is not chosen. Life itself is the Gift of a loving God. And the one who received this Gift is responsible for the Gift received. Life and health are not a commodity or just a human right, but an invaluable divine gift. Therefore, they cannot be viewed from the point of view of economy or benefit, logical schemes and definitions, but these gifts should be treated with reverence, bearing in mind their sacred meaning (Morgan, 2017).

Christians believes that the intervention of science (abortion, at the first stage of life, euthanasia at the last), resulting in the interruption of life, contradict God’s sovereignty over life, the prohibition of killing and the view of people as creatures in the “image and likeness of God.”

The Orthodox Church is fully aware of the weakness of man, of his nature when confronted with the difficulties of life, and thus embraces the sinner, but cannot morally justify murder, since this conflicts with the will of God (Scherz, 2017).

The Holy Apostle Paul writes that there is a huge gulf between moral law and its actual embodiment. “For I know that there is no good in me, that is, in my flesh, because there is a desire for good in me, but to make it happen, I do not find that. I do not do the good I want, but I do the evil I do not want ”(Rom. 7: 18–19).

How Christians View Life

The human personality itself does not lose its dignity when suffering pain or suffering. The value of a person is lost when, for the sake of short-term interests and superficial criteria, we determine the benefit of a person in the termination of his biological existence provoked by us both at the initial and final stages.

Spiritual and physical illness of a person is a “human, too human” state. Sick humanity has always sought and is committed to healing. But healing involves not only medical intervention in human flesh, but also the attainment of the spiritual and moral perfection of human relationships.

Because of this, relief from pain and suffering by killing a sufferer, achieving health through transplantation with forced removal of organs from corpses, healing the body with drugs made from dead human embryos, giving birth to a child by destroying other “test tube children”, etc. – this is not only not healing, but new forms of manifestation of spiritual and moral diseases.

In the Holy Scriptures, death is represented as the separation of the soul from the body (Ps. 145. 4; Luke 12. 20). Thus, it is possible to talk about the continuation of life as long as the activity of the organism as a whole is carried out (Peterson, 2017).

Christians believes that God loves man infinitely more than those people who, under the guise of compassion, are trying to intervene in the work of God’s Providence for saving man. Suffering is sometimes cleansing and leads to salvation and glory in the life of the next century. At the same time, clergymen know by experience that after prayer, unction and communion, absolutely hopeless patients returned to normal life (Posadas 2017).

According to Christians, physical suffering is not the worst suffering that can be subjected to a person. The body, like all pain, will go to earth after death, and our soul will ascend to the Lord God, and there it will suffer or be in peace and tranquility. What seems useful to a person for the quality of life here may not be useful for the quality of life there.

Knowing that deathbed physical suffering is not always effectively eliminated by the use of painkillers, the Church in such cases turns to God a prayer: “Allow Your servant unbearable by sowing the disease and containing his bitter infirmity and rest, the ideology of the righteous Dushi.”

In this problem, a lot depends on society. A person who is incurably ill should not die at home. Hospice (a medical institution in which patients with a predictable adverse outcome of the disease receive decent care and services) is designed to provide not only professional assistance in treating symptoms of the disease, qualified nursing care, but also provide psychological and spiritual support to patients, their relatives and friends. Therefore, the state should develop a network of such institutions (Hurst, 2017).

The church respects the end of human life. She is waiting for his hour. And when this hour comes, the Church simply recognizes this and accompanies the person in his life and after that. Illness, pain, powerlessness and imperfection are manifestations of life, which should be met with patience, love and humility. And this is impossible if we provoke death. The Lord alone is the Lord of life and death (1 Sam. 2. 6). “In His hand is the soul of all life, and the spirit of all human flesh” (Job 12:10). Therefore, the Church, keeping the commandment of God “do not kill” (Exodus 20. 13), cannot recognize as morally acceptable the attempts now common in secular society to legalize euthanasia. The patient’s request for the acceleration of death is sometimes caused by the state of depression, which prevents him from properly assessing his position. The recognition of the legality of euthanasia would lead to the diminution of dignity and the distortion of the professional duty of a doctor, designed to preserve and not curb life (Hurst, 2017).

How Christians View Death and Dying

On this basis, euthanasia is a form of murder or suicide, depending on whether the patient is taking part in it. In the latter case, the relevant canonical rules are applicable to euthanasia, according to which intentional suicide, like assisting in its commission, is regarded as a grave sin. The deliberate suicide who “made this one of the resentment of a human or on any other occasion of cowardice” is not honored with Christian burial and liturgical commemoration (White & Afrane, 2017).

The fundamental message of the Buddhist teachings is that if we are prepared there is hope in life as well as in death. The moment of death is an incredible opportunity if we have prepared well to face it in life and we know what is happening (Davis, 2015).

The ideal way to die is to have it all, internally and externally so that nothing remains where the mind can be grasped at the final moment. Before dying we should try to free ourselves from all attachment to our possessions, friends and loved ones (Chandradasa et al 2018).

Buddhism believe that the most important thing is that you use the precious time you have left to live well and be happy. A dying person should be let to reflect on what he has achieved and has done well. He or she should be let to be as constructive and happy with his life as possible and concentrate on his virtues and not on his failures. That remember not only count the suffering and pain. He should also be allowed to assume his life and himself, to finish the things that are pending and to solve any affective problem by cleaning his heart of hatred and resentment. May she forgive all those who have harmed her in her life and ask for forgiveness from those she may have harmed (Zivkovic, 2013).  All religions emphasize the power to forgive and this power is more necessary and feels more deeply when you are dying.

 Buddhism denies active euthanasia, as well as artificial continuation of life, when death could occur without medical equipment and intensive care. However, the doctor must make every effort to save human life. It is forbidden to abort pregnancy in all cases. Organ transplantation and blood transfusion are possible only from a living donor, provided that it was his gift to the patient (that is, the donor did not receive money for this). Buddhist followers do not recognize artificial insemination.

Evidently, both religions do not support euthanasia. I have read several articles where people who were once critically ill recovered and lead a decent life and I believe that euthanasia is wrong.  I strongly believe that there is likelihood that a person who have been declared fit for physician assisted suicide may still have a chance to recover and lead a decent life. In addition, I believe that the decision made during assessment on whether the person should receive physician assisted suicide may be biased and may not consider all possible options objectively. The other ethical issue is that is people are not allowed to die when they are in serious injuries, they may live a painful life. So out of these issues, the dilemma is to determine whether there is threshold where a person can be declared to qualify for physician assisted suicide.

The perspective presented by the readings entitled “ Why Disability Rights Advocates are fighting doctor-assisted suicide” is that the doctor assisted suicide unnecessarily encourage the lose of precious life and that it may prevent otherwise resourceful and potential people from recovering and contributing to their families and to the society (Gorman, 2015). That is why the article identified example of different people who recovered after experiencing fatal injuries and are doing well. A good example is Anthony Orefice (Picciuto, 2018). Orefice had been declared fit for doctor-assisted suicide but luckily, he was not euthanized. Currently, he is doing well, has a business and is supporting his family. On the other hand, the perspective presented in the article entitled “Suicide and Physician-Assisted Death for Persons with Psychiatric disorders” attempted to determine whether the physician assisted death is the same as suicide. The article define PAD as the desire to control how one dies not whether one lives or dies. The article concluded by stating that there is no consensus as to whether the psychiatric PAD is similar to suicide or not.

References

Gorman, A. (2015). Why Disability-Rights Advocates Are Fighting Doctor-Assisted Suicide. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/disability-rights-assisted-suicide-california/397235/

Picciuto, E. (2018). Why Disability Advocates Say No to Doctor-Assisted Death. The Daily Best. Retrieved from: https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-disability-advocates-say-no-to-doctor-assisted-death

Morgan, J. (2017). A Loss of Judgment: The Dismissal of the Judicial Conscience in Recent Christian Ethics. Journal of Religious Ethics, 45(3), 539–561. https://doi.org/10.1111/jore.12189

Posadas, J. (2017). The Refusal of Work in Christian Ethics and Theology. Journal of Religious Ethics, 45(2), 330–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/jore.12180

Scherz, P. (2017). Grief, Death, and Longing in Stoic and Christian Ethics. Journal of Religious Ethics, 45(1), 7–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/jore.12166

Hurst, D. J. (2017). Moral Passion and Christian Ethics. Reviews in Religion & Theology, 24(4), 699–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/rirt.13060

Hurst, D. J. (2017). Introducing Christian Ethics: A Short Guide to Making Moral Decisions. Reviews in Religion & Theology, 24(2), 358–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/rirt.12937

Peterson, A. J. (2017). Karl Barth and Christian Ethics: Living in Truth. Reviews in Religion & Theology, 24(2), 390–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/rirt.12950

White, P., & Afrane, S. K. (2017). Maintaining Christian virtues and ethos in Christian universities in Ghana: The reality, challenges and the way forward. Hervormde Teologiese Studies, 73(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v73i3.4442

Chandradasa, M., Kuruppuarachchi, K. A. L. A., Wijesinghe, C., & Perera, M. (2018). Near-Death Experiences in a Multi-religious Hospital Population in Sri Lanka. Journal of Religion & Health, 57(5), 1599–1605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-017-0442-9

Zivkovic, T. (2013). Returning from the dead: Contested continuities in Tibetan Buddhism. Mortality, 18(1), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/13576275.2012.752352

Davis, E. W. (2015). Kinship Beyond Death: Ambiguous Relations and Autonomous Children in Cambodian Buddhism. Contemporary Buddhism, 16(1), 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639947.2015.1008953