The term “euthanasia” means ending the life of a seriously ill person with the consent of him or his relatives. The practice is used in cases where the patient is unable to bear bodily suffering and there is no chance of healing. However, in a number of countries this practice has begun to be applied to physically healthy people who have lost interest in life.
The church's attitude towards euthanasia is negative, since mercy killing is unacceptable in Orthodoxy. The main religious arguments are based on the judgment that human life belongs to the Almighty, and only He decides when the time for the last breath has come.
Why can't a person decide for himself when to die?
From a purely secular point of view - because the line between “a decision that a person himself made” and “a decision to which he was brought” is extremely fuzzy. There have been several known cases of suicide by cancer patients who, for various reasons, were unable to receive pain relief. Was their decision completely voluntary? If they were offered to legally kill them, they would apparently sign all the required papers, but would their consent be completely voluntary?
Moreover, not only purely physical, but also psychological pressure can greatly influence a person’s decision - and when he is completely at the mercy of others, it is not difficult for them to convince him to consent to euthanasia.
The “right to die” naturally turns into the “duty to die.” As British philosopher Baroness Warnock, for example, says, people with dementia are “obligated to die” because they are “wasting the resources of their families and the health system.” We are talking about dementia - that is, a disease that is not accompanied by excruciating pain. A person “must die” not because he himself suffers, but because he burdens others.
Euthanasia, therefore, inevitably creates a certain psychological pressure that pushes a person to take advantage of the solution offered to him, and the appeal to personal autonomy - a person, they say, is free to decide for himself - easily turns into mockery. He decides in conditions when the state - and, possibly, those close to him - are interested in his speedy death.
Russian legislation on euthanasia
Legislation in some countries allows the use of so-called voluntary euthanasia for medical reasons. These are some European countries, Canada and other countries. In five American states, euthanasia is also legal.
Article 45 of Federal Law No. 323-FZ “On the fundamentals of protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federation” directly prohibits health workers from accelerating the death of a patient by their action or inaction, even if he himself insists on this. In the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, euthanasia is classified as murder - intentionally causing the death of another person and is punishable under Part 1 of Art. 105 imprisonment for a term of 6 to 15 years. It should be noted that Russian legislators, not without reason, believe that euthanasia, as a permitted murder, can be used for criminal purposes. For example, out of a feeling of revenge, for selfish reasons, in a state of passion, etc.
Why do you think that euthanasia will certainly lead to abuse?
And it’s already leading. For a number of reasons, some of which are immediately obvious:
- For the interest of the state (and perhaps relatives) in freeing oneself from the burdens and costs associated with continuing the patient's life, see Baroness Warnock, already quoted.
- The tendency of any system - including the healthcare system - to choose the least expensive options in terms of labor, finances and other resources. For example, all problems with pain management in our country will immediately end with the introduction of euthanasia - after all, for someone who is suffering unbearably, it will be enough to write out one referral for the last procedure. With all this, it is incomparably cheaper to euthanize people than to look for ways to treat or alleviate suffering.
- A general destruction of the idea that human life is worth living, and people have a responsibility to support each other's desire to live. This leads, for example, to a refusal to save suicides, of which there are already examples, and a general decrease in society's interest in its most vulnerable members.
- Rapid blurring of the boundaries of what is acceptable. Initially, euthanasia was introduced as an exceptional measure for dying people whose recovery is impossible and who experience unbearable suffering. Nowadays, euthanasia is also practiced in relation to people who have become very despondent and need competent psychiatric, psychological and spiritual help - and not death.
- The inability to draw a clear line between enabling/suggesting/inducing/forcing euthanasia, especially given that seriously ill people are extremely vulnerable and those euthanized are dead and cannot make any claims.
The mystery of death in Christianity
Science and medicine strive to push back the boundaries that mark the exit of the soul from the body. Scientists are developing numerous methods to return patients to consciousness. However, belief in the immortality of the individual soul, as well as in the afterlife, puts the possibility of a “good death” in great doubt.
The Church's attitude towards euthanasia
Christianity does not allow the spread of this practice, based on the most important commandment of the Lord “thou shalt not kill.” The Church morally rejects the legalization of euthanasia, which has gained popularity in secular circles.
- The mystery of death is considered in funeral services and appears to be a tragic moment of life. Orthodox people feel sorrow in memory of the deceased, but rejoice when they remember that the Savior gave us immortality by accepting martyrdom and opening the Gates of Paradise. The Lord who descended to earth defeated physical death—the last enemy.
- The Orthodox Church prays daily for a painless, peaceful death for every person. In ancient Greece, such death was called “euthanasia.” In those days, this word was in no way associated with a premature end, filled with despondency, great despair and terrible pain.
- Today, euthanasia is the willful (that is, denying the power of the Creator) destruction of the body. Proponents of the method talk about sympathy, alleviation of severe suffering, but these concepts are distorted if we consider the issue more deeply. Modern euthanasia was formed on the basis of unbelief and loss of love for the environment; in place of eternal truths, straightforward rationalism began to form, not accepting what is hidden.
- Human life is a great gift from God, which guides the beginning and end of all existence. The key moments of existence are hidden from the mind and constitute an insoluble mystery that must be humbly accepted by relatives, doctors, and each of us. The pleas of the unfortunate for euthanasia evoke a feeling of our love and desire to be nearby, showing sympathy.
- The existence of trials is seen as contributing to the salvation of the soul. The Church, knowing about the weakness and morbidity of human nature, asks the Lord to have mercy on the dying man. Religion recommends praying before the image of the Creator, and not making a choice between death and life.
About funeral prayers:
- Memorial service for reading by the laity at home and in the cemetery
- Children's prayer for deceased parents
- Sorokoust for the repose
About overcoming suffering
If a person has a reason for life, he will endure almost any condition. We will take the liberty to say that nothing helps a person to overcome difficulties and endure suffering more than the consciousness that he is faced with a vital task, that he lives for the sake of something or someone. This is especially evident when a person sees this task as if it was specially intended for him personally. Such a task helps a person to feel that he is irreplaceable; his life acquires value for him simply because it is unique. If we consider life from the point of view of its inherent life tasks, one cannot help but come to the conclusion that life is always more meaningful the more difficult it is.
The goal of doctors and relatives should be to help a suffering person master the most active life position available to him, to transfer him, so to speak, from a “suffering” state to an “active-effective” one.
Suffering in itself is fruitless; moreover, it can crush a person and devastate him. Suffering, the meaning of which is unclear and with which a person is left alone, is destructive. An honest question arises: why endure, what will come of it? The situation with terminally ill patients is similar to what concentration camp prisoners experienced. Both of them had no opportunity to avoid suffering. The experience of German and Soviet concentration camps showed that out of a thousand prisoners, two or three people tried to commit suicide and threw themselves onto the barbed wire. This means that in the lives of the others there was something or someone for the sake of which they endured torment and overcame it.
It all depends on what meaning a person sees in his suffering, for the sake of which he is ready to endure it. Someone can endure for the sake of an idea, for the sake of loved ones, for the sake of creativity, someone strives to comprehend their suffering religiously. There are also those who simply endure.
But still, the above does not provide clear answers. It becomes clear that in any case, the desire for early death should be considered individually and only if it is accepted by the patient himself and when any manipulation on the part of relatives or doctors is excluded. But, be that as it may, outside of religion it is impossible to give an unambiguous assessment of specific cases and the phenomenon in general. This assessment will always be subjective. Only religion can give its followers those additional and necessary arguments. Experience shows that public discussion on this topic is drowned in the inability to agree on the key questions about death and the purpose of human life.
About the right to suicide
The concept of “rational suicide” is often used. It describes a person’s ability, having taken a conscious conclusion of his entire life, to make a decision to refuse further existence. As a rule, in such cases the principle of pleasure is identified with the positive asset of life, from which it follows that the outcome of life may well turn out to be negative. The question, however, is whether such a result could be so negative that the continuation of life would seem hopelessly devalued to a person?
First of all, one should doubt: is every person capable of assessing his life with sufficient objectivity? This is especially true when a person comes to the conclusion that his problems are insoluble or that suicide is the only possible solution. No matter how strong this belief may be, it still remains subjective. No one can know in advance whether he correctly assesses the situation and whether he is objective in his judgments, or whether literally in an hour events will show that he was wrong - and he, perhaps, will not live to see that hour.
Therefore, we will take the liberty of making a generalization: not a single suicide can be morally justified.
Nor can it represent redemption. For suicide not only deprives a person of the opportunity to develop and gain experience, including as a result of his own suffering, but also deprives him of the opportunity to atone for the suffering that he himself has caused to others. Suicide will never pay for the past. Instead of ending with previous misfortunes or injustice, the suicidal person simply ends with his own self.
Suicide, in principle, cannot solve any problems. Those who wish to commit suicide are like a chess player who, when faced with a very difficult chess problem, simply sweeps the pieces off the board. But the problem cannot be solved this way. Just as you cannot solve life’s problems by destroying this life. Just as a chess player breaks the rules of the game by throwing pieces off the board, so does a person attempting suicide break the rules of life. The rules of the game of life do not require victory at any cost, but these rules require us to fight tirelessly.
About medical ethics
It goes without saying that doctors are called upon to alleviate the suffering and death throes of the sick. Personal tact and instinct help doctors determine when it is necessary to resort to this, and it does not occur to anyone to condemn it. The most obvious problem is that drug killing has been and can be used for more than just humane purposes. Moreover, from time to time, in certain circles, voices are heard in defense of this method in order to legitimize the murder of people whose lives supposedly no longer have value.
Through his actions, the doctor must help the patient realize his desire to live and his right to life. Society has placed on the doctor the only duty - to help whenever he can; reduce pain where he sees fit; to treat, to the best of his ability, and to care for the terminally ill. If patients and their loved ones were not convinced that the doctor was serious and thorough in fulfilling the duties assigned to him, they would never trust him again. After all, otherwise the patient would not be sure who the doctor would be for him now - an assistant or an executioner.
One must assume that a doctor is obligated to save a person, even if he has a patient in front of him who has attempted suicide and whose life is now hanging by a thread. In such a situation, the doctor will have to decide whether he should leave such a person to the fate that he has chosen for himself, whether he should prevent the suicide from carrying out his plans, since this intention has manifested itself in action. However, if fate really prepared death for a person, it would always find a way to ensure that the doctor’s help came too late. If this does not happen, then the doctor must fulfill his calling, and never take on the role of fate and decide, based on his own philosophical beliefs, whether to let the patient live or not.
Recognizing the legality of euthanasia would lead to a derogation of the dignity and perversion of the professional duty of a doctor, called upon to preserve, and not to suppress, life. The “right to die” can easily turn into a threat to the lives of patients whose treatment does not have enough money.
