What Do Protestants Believe About Euthanasia?

Enric Capó, España, November 5, 2006

Like so many others, euthanasia is a word that comes from the Greek used for Taxi Heathrow Airport a good, lovely, happy qanatos or death. In its composite form with eu, we could literally translate it as meaning “the good death,” “a happy death,” or, as it is used nowadays, “a death with dignity.” We use the word in reference to the act by which we voluntarily put an end to our life or that of someone else with their explicit consent, when suffering a painful and prolonged terminal illness. Such explicit consent cannot always be obtained, especially in the case of persons in coma or children.  

It is important to distinguish between active euthanasia and passive. For some time now doctors and society in general have accepted passive euthanasia, which means not attempting to prolong the life of a person whose illness is irreversible in the short term. It is generally accepted that to lengthen a life for a matter of hours or a few days at a cost of suffering and anguish, is not to be. What is to be done in such a situation is not to preserve such a life as long as possible, but to allow the person the possibility of a death with dignity or without pain. We are to allow the person to die. We are to accompany the person with care and attention that will make the leaving of this life human, dignified and gentle.  

The most difficult problem comes when we speak of active euthanasia, which means a voluntary intervention to shorten a deteriorated life. Do we have the right to do so? If so, when; in which circumstances; under what circumstances, and; who has the right to decide?

We need to place under this epigraph of active euthanasia, assisted suicide and living wills. In the case of a living will, the testator establishes that in the event of a serious and irreversible illness, not only is that person not to undergo medical treatment to uselessly prolong the person’s life, but also that in the event of the person not being in a capacity to decide, that the person’s life be ended. A living will take into consideration not only the situation of the person who is ill, but also the wellbeing of the family. A purpose of it is that the loved ones not be caused misfortune and pain.

What does the Bible say about euthanasia?

If we are to be objective about the matter, we will come to the conclusion that the Bible does not say anything about euthanasia. Neither the texts used by those who want it to say that it is not permissible (2 Samuel 1:6-10; Exodus 10:13; 1 Samuel 1:6-16; Matthew 7:20), nor the wanting to see in the Bible the permission given to practice it, are in anyway convincing. Quite simply, the Bible does not take the practice of euthanasia into consideration, and therefore does not speak to its possibility. 

Now, does this mean that we are free to take whatever option we may choose? Of course not! Even though it does not explicitly say anything about euthanasia, the Bible continues to be the norm for our faith and actions. The fact is, and we see it very clearly in the case at hand, the Bible is not a legal code which we are to blindly follow, thus making it useless to try and find texts, sometimes farfetched, to support our positions.

It is not the purpose of the Bible to give us a new law which we can apply without having anything more to do, but rather its principal purpose is that of leading us to Christ. In communion with Christ we find healthy and proper criteria that allow us to deal with the problems we face. It is about assimilating Christ’s teaching. More so, it is about making that teaching ours in such a way that we can say, with the Apostle Paul, that we have the mind of Christ.

Because of that, the Bible does not have stereotyped answers for all human problems. Even more, it invites us to find them ourselves, following the criteria of doing all “for the Lord.” In addition, it accepts as being valid that there may be different answers for the same problem.

This leads us to search for an answer in the overall witness of the Scriptures, and not in any one biblical text. It is in that witness that we are to find the guiding light for the decisions that the churches have taken with regard to euthanasia. 

The argument that we are to allow nature to follow its course and that therefore there is to be no intervention in the process of dying, is not a valid one. It is not valid because we are continually discovering the extent to which nature itself is caught up in the effects of the fall of humankind. We struggle daily against that fall, seeking to correct its deviations. All medical practice is destined to fight suffering and so correct the “curse” of nature. If we do not allow nature to follow its course in the case of illness and we avoid suffering with all our ability, why should we not do the same in the extreme case of our own death, when no other option is available?   

However, even in the case of our having decided against the practice of euthanasia, we should leave the door open for others, even though they have different answers. It is their personal choice and it is our obligation to respect it, even though we may be in disagreement. That is so because we are talking about voluntary and personal choices, and only about those. In no case can they be generally applied to others who suffer handicaps or to persons who are themselves not in a capacity to be able to decide. Those are very complex situations that require separate consideration. The case of new born babies, who have no possibility of continuing to live, also requires a different kind of consideration.                                         

What is the position held by the churches?

Nearly all of the churches, with greater or less clarity, have expressed themselves on the moral problem that the practice of euthanasia presents. That is not to say that their statements are norms of faith and cannot be modified. Protestantism does not have dogmas as such. Its doctrinal statements express positions taken at specific moments of its history, and are never intended to neither be permanent nor have the authority of being the Word of God. Such statements are to be seen within the context in which they were made, and their only pretension is that of responding to the demands of the Bible with what information is available.  

In February, 2004, the Conference of European Churches carried out a survey on euthanasia, among its member churches. The results showed that none of the churches consulted (Protestant and Orthodox), was in favor of active euthanasia but revealed differences and pointed out nuances: from an outright rejection of euthanasia on the one hand, to a limited acceptance, clearly and carefully stated under very strict conditions of exceptional cases, on the other. All of the churches surveyed were in agreement that to kill human beings so as to avoid suffering is to be considered a grave sin. Nevertheless, they were also in agreement that there is no virtue in prolonging the life of a terminally ill patient by the use of “advanced technology,” and that there are no theological difficulties involved in allowing the patient to die a natural death.   

The main arguments that the official statements of the churches give, refer to the sanctity of life as a gift of God. Humankind has been created in the image of God and that fact bestows on human life a special sanctity. It is God who gives life and who takes it away, and therefore nobody can intervene to shorten it. Death is an event in this life and, more than being an ending, marks a transition. For a Christian in communion with God, there is no “terminal condition.” Death is a part of life. 

However, this is not a unanimous position. The same document on euthanasia from the Conference of European Churches, admits that “the sense of responsibility of a believer can, in exceptional situations, lead to a sacrificing of one’s life for one’s neighbor or in the service of God. In exceptional cases, when pain and anguish become unbearable, the consequence may be a request that euthanasia be carried out.”

There are also some churches that allow the possibility of euthanasia in extreme cases. For example, the Waldensian and Methodist Churches of Italy differ from the general opinion, by accepting the right of a person to decide his or her own death in the case of a terminal illness. 

What should the attitude of the believer be?

Faced with the problem of euthanasia, the Christian should exercise his or her discernment and ability to conscientiously answer to God. There is no external authority that has sufficient power to force taking any particular position. It will always be, and should be, a personal decision, keeping in mind the person’s faith and conscience guided by the Word of God. We cannot all have the same answer, and a respecting of the decision of others should prevail. What is most important is that each person be faithful to their own convictions. 

On the one hand, the biblical understanding of life and death needs to be taken into account. It is true that life is a gift from God and we have the obligation to preserve it and put it to God’s service and that of others. This thought should inspire our life and behavior: “no one lives for themselves, and no one dies for themselves.” Nevertheless, it does not seem to be objectionable that, when this life has become so deteriorated, to the point of having nothing more to offer, a believer should want to give it back to God, when under circumstances of great suffering. God does not want humankind to suffer, and so to say that where there is suffering it is because the Lord so wills it, is, quite simply, blasphemy.

* The author is Pastor of the Evangelical Church in Catalunia and Director of the “Protestant Christianity” magazine, the official organ of the Spanish Evangelical Church (Spanish Methodist and Presbyterian Churches).