euthansia in xianity?

Question

if large doses of painkillers are used to help ease a person's suffering, and as a result of these the person dies, this is said to be known as double effect and is allowed.

why is this allowed in christianity?? plz eplain and give quotes if u can!

Answer 1

Double effect is a bioethics term. Theoretically, the first premise of bioethics is to do no harm. If an act produces harm, it is bad. If it produces well-being, it is good. But what if a single act produces harm of one kind and well-being of another kind? This is double effect. In your example, if reducing pain is a good, but the causation of death is bad, there is a double effect. Analysis of such a problem is not easy. Is the evil effect intended, even though the result is expected to be good? Then such an act would violate Christian Scripture, wherein Paul said that we should not do evil to bring about good; that is a corrupting thought, and leads to endless excesses. Suicide bombings come to mind as an example. Even acting without a direct intent to do evil, yet being certain that the evil will follow, invites the charge of self-deception. We tell ourselves we are doing something for a good cause, but we are certain of bad consequences. What then are our real motives? What we tell our conscious mind to ease our conscience, or the desire to produce the complete set of effects that will result from our action, including the evil effects?

But perhaps the most difficult question is proportionality. If a very small good produces a very large side-effect of harm, the harm supposedly outweighs the good, and the act is to be avoided. If the act produces great good and only a little harm, the act might be considered ethical. Therefore, using this approach, whether double effect provides a legitimate basis for administering lethal amounts of pain killer depends directly on the balance of harms versus goods. If the greatest good is the so-called quality of one’s life, the removal of pain, even at the expense of life, would be the more ethical act. If, as most conservative Christians believe, life itself, rather than life’s quality, is the greatest good, then pain can be reduced only insofar as it does not end life.

This is rooted more deeply in the Christian concept of personhood. In secular ethics, the person is a mere composite of functionality. What can they do, how well can they think and interact with their surroundings, etc. This is how the more agressive forms of euthanasia are frequently justified. After all, an early-stage fetus is just a low-functionality collection of tissue, right? But the knowledgable Christian believes that all humans, even those whose functionality is weak, or whose beliefs are unlike our own, are made in the spiritual likeness of their Creator, and thus deserve the full measure of respect as persons, whether they are capable or incapable of the full range of human activity. This view is the noblest, and protects us from the abuses of fascism, of supposed master-race theory, of social Darwinism, of turning humanity into a mere collection of functionally defined tools, to be disposed of when they become too inconvenient to maintain. Thus, the rule of proportionality in double effect for Christians is controlled by an authoritative definition of human worth, best represented by the price God was willing to pay to redeem us from our sins.

Answer 2

life is a terminal condition. Only 2 people have gotten out alive so far. Sometimes it is a fine line, for removal of suffering is appropriate, where suicide/euthanasia is usually considered inappropriate. Scripture seems to be against suicide. I think it is seen as a lack of faith, and taking things into your own hands, rather than leaving the results to YHVH. On the other hand, I don't think I should be allowed to make your choices for you, or for Dr. Kevorkian.

Answer 3

I'd like to be allowed to "pick my time" if my quality of life was significantly diminished.

I see no problem with that.

Everyone dies. What's the big deal?

Answer 4

I'm fairly sure it's not allowed. The Pope for one prefers people to live in pain rather than ease their suffering.

Answer 5

i've never heard of this.

if you can, please try to provide a source.

but going on what you said(that it's okay), i'd say that it's okay because they didn't try to kill them, it was from giving them painkillers


lost.eu/21618

Answer 6

Liberals believe in killing useless old people.

Christians don't. We take care of our people.