In the field of nursing, it is common to find sick patients whose state of health is continuously deteriorating. The ethical dilemma arises when such patients have been suffering for a long time, and the doctor has to initiate assisted medical suicide as an approach to help reduce medication cost while relieving the patient’s suffering. The issue is that doctors appear to play the role of God through use of technology and other techniques in initiating Euthanasia, which poses an ethical dilemma. Doctors usually first evaluate the health condition of the patient and determines whether they have fewer chances of surviving and higher chances of death (Cherry, 2018). This means that the doctor can accelerate the process by offering either medication or other technological aspects leading to faster death than it would otherwise take without the doctor’s intervention. However, while the doctors may be given authority by the families of the patient to initiate the painless death, the practitioners appear to play the role of God, which violates the biblical worldview which emphasize that murder is morally unacceptable (Steffen, 2017). One of the possible resolutions would entail allowing nature to take its course without any human intervention, which implies that doctors can allow for natural death without initiating it. However, this option might lead to pain and suffering as well as escalating medication bills for the relatives. Another intervention is through intercessory prayers initiated by the doctors to the patients. This is particularly applicable in cases where the patient is a Christian. Moreover, it would result in a lengthy stay in the hospital, and a longer time for the patient to live in pain.
Core Beliefs
The biblical aspect of deliberate murder is an indication that Euthanasia is a grave violation of God’s law. Arguably, the doctor’s actions and intentions are not as harmful since, their primary focus is to relieve a patient’s pain and suffering; however, in the aspect of Christian religion, this would be a case of murder. According to Anthony and Sterkens (2019), the Bible explicitly states that “You shall not Kill” as the sixth commandment, which is a core belief that killing leads to violation of God’s laws. Since this is a forbidden intervention, euthanasia is seen as a harmful intervention because it goes against the Bible. Moreover, God decides how long each person can live, and it is not the mandate of humans to interfere with the length of life for any individual (Liégeois, and De Schrijver, 2018). Considering the Christian perspective on the practice, it becomes an ethical challenge for doctors who are Christians. The medical perception of euthanasia points out that the murder is legally acceptable, and it thus an approach to helping the patient by painlessly initiating death. However, as a Christian, this is a violation of the Biblical laws, which if not undertaken, is considered a bad medical practice. The medical practitioners, therefore, are faced with the ethical dilemma in their practice and either the Christian beliefs or aspects of humanity will play a role in influencing their decision in the said scenario.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Resolution
The best resolution based on the Christian worldview in resolving the ethical dilemma is to engage in intercession to help the patient. According to de Oliveira (2016), if the Christian doctor finds evidence that a patient may have fewer chances of survival, interceding for their soul, purposefully to ensure they are forgiven of their sins before their death comes naturally. It would be against God’s laws to initiate deliberate murder for the patient, and the best approach would be to intercede rather than engage in euthanasia for the Christian. The dilemma can be resolved in a Christian manner such that in the even to of the patient’s death, the doctor will be assumed to have done their role of intercession and natural causes will be attributed to have led to the demise of the patient rather than artificial causes. Moreover, in such a case the doctor will not be held liable for murder for exercising practiced euthanasia, which is against Biblical and Christian worldviews.
Evaluation
The unintended consequence of the proposed approach is that the patient will have extensive suffering before natural death occurs, which is an unethical practice. Additionally, the patient may suffer for a protracted duration, especially if the estimations given by the doctors on their death are not accurate. However, benefits of this resolution within the Christian worldview assert that, due to technical issues, estimations may not be accurate, which means that the patient may still survive the health ordeal. As a result, a life is saved by not practicing euthanasia, which would have otherwise led to a patient’s death. Additionally, if the patient dies, their soul would be saved due to the intercession given by the doctor, which is one of the Christian roles in the world. As a result, taking the path of the resolution recommended would be a much better approach as opposed to Euthanasia.
Comparison
The Christian worldview perception and its resolution to the ethical dilemma are based on intercession, which is an act of faith rather than the use of technological and scientific gadgets. This means that the evidence of its outcomes is not valid to many people, especially those who may not be within the Christian foundation. Other worldviews such as scientism might argue against the Christian resolution to the dilemma with claims that there is no assurance of eternal life or faith in action. Moreover, since intersession does not lead to observable improvements in the physical aspects of the patient, it becomes difficult for scientism worldviews to agree with the approach. Scientism may offer the resolution as Euthanasia, which has observable outcomes and painless death but fails to conform to the Christian viewpoints.
Conclusion
Notably, it is clear that euthanasia is legally acceptable within the field of medicine, but presents an ethical dilemma to doctors who abide by the Christian foundations. Such practitioners may have difficulties in deciding on whether or not practicing euthanasia is an acceptable course in their profession regarding their religion. Possible resolutions to the approach are evident, with intercession for the patient being the most prominent strategy. It helps to save a soul and, if the patient recovers from their illness, it would have saved the patients from death through euthanasia. Therefore, the ethical dilemma affects medication practitioners and decisions in resolving it may vary despite the religious perspective.
References
Anthony, F. V., & Sterkens, C. (2019). Religion and the right to (dispose of) life: A study of the attitude of Christian, Muslim and Hindu students in India concerning death penalty, euthanasia and abortion. In Euthanasia, Abortion, Death Penalty and Religion-The Right to Life and its Limitations (pp. 13-63). Springer, Cham.
Cherry, M. J. (2018). Physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia: How not to die as a Christian.
De Oliveira, J. V. G. (2016). “Suffering, Challenge and Overcoming. A Christian Perspective on Disability. IJAHSS (International Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences) , 1 (3), 30-37.
Liégeois, A., & De Schrijver, S. (2018). Christian ethical boundaries of suicide prevention. Religions , 9 (1), 30.
Steffen, L. (2017). Christian Perspectives on Assited Dying: An Issue for Religious Ethics. Euthanasia And Assisted Suicide: Global Views on Choosing to End Life, California: Praeger , 121-145.
