Christian and Buddhist Worldviews on Euthanasia: George's Case Study

This essay provides an ethical analysis of euthanasia, specifically addressing the case of George, a legal professional diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) who desires euthanasia. The analysis is conducted through the lenses of Christian and Buddhist worldviews. The essay explores the Christian perspective, which generally opposes euthanasia due to the belief in the sanctity of life and God's role in life and death. It contrasts this with the Buddhist perspective, which, while not explicitly addressing euthanasia, considers the alleviation of suffering and the individual's right to choose, particularly for those who have achieved enlightenment. The essay examines the moral justifications for and against euthanasia within each worldview, ultimately concluding that euthanasia should be allowed for George, emphasizing the importance of the quality of life and the individual's autonomy in end-of-life decisions. The essay references various scholarly sources to support its arguments.

Running head: WORLDVIEW
Worldview
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author’s note:

1WORLDVIEW
The function of any healthcare worker is to ensure complete recovery of the ailing patient
at hand, without exhibiting any form of biased attitude while treating a patient of any religious
background. Regardless of the religious faith of the specific person, the healthcare practitioner
should deliver the best possible treatment to the patient. In the present case, George, otherwise
accomplished legal professional has been diagnosed with terminally ill disease Amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis whereby he wishes to opt for euthanasia. Considering the given situation, the
report intends to offer an ethical analysis of George’s situation, in the light of the Christian and
Buddhist world view.
According to the Christian worldview, sin, suffering or any form of illness emanate in the
world because of the Fall of mankind. The Christians can explain the condition of George by
stating that illness is the result of the sins perpetrated by mankind (Ehrman, 2000). The Bible
states that “In Him (God) we live and move and have our being” and thus George’s malady can
be described as part of the design of his destiny as per the plan of God. As god wills, so shall
happen, and if George has to suffer, he will and he will eventually embrace death in accordance
with the wish of the Almighty, the creator and destroyer of human lives (Slott, 2015). As per the
Buddhist worldview, human suffering and death are inescapable parts of human existence, and
cannot be taken away. George being born as a human being could not escape disease. However,
the Buddhists refer to Karma, whereby the action of the past life determines the well-being of the
person in future life (Chai, 2015). Accordingly, George might have perpetrated sins for which he
has to atone in this life (Fendert, 2014). The Karmic cause cannot be cured until the Karmic
effect is exhausted through human suffering and death.
George has been diagnosed with a terminally ill disease and the question arises how far
his life can be deemed to be worthy. The Biblical scriptures clearly state the unquestionable

2WORLDVIEW
worth of human life as human beings are stewards of God rather than the owners of their lives.
God has sent each human on earth with an eternal purpose and even though the person may be
dying or is incapacitated, his existence serves the purpose of God in a cosmic world (Valk,
2015). Hence, the value of George’s life does not diminish even if he may beat the point of
dying. Every human life, whether suffering from ALS like George or not has an intrinsic value
which cannot be taken away from him, unless God chooses to. On the other hand, although the
Buddhists believe in the worth of human life even if the individual is not enjoying optimal
physical or mental health, the Buddhists being agonistics, claim that life is worth living as long
as the person inhabiting the body finds it worth living. According to the Buddhist worldview, if
George is able to free himself completely from the selfish desires of human existence and able to
feel enlightened, he can be emancipated from the pangs of human life (Jerryson, 2015). This will
be done only because human life is important and suffering as per the design of any higher
authority is not considered necessary here. George’s life is worthy and he is allowed to lead his
life while undergoing the illness, and yet however, human existence as per the Buddhist
worldview is free from any intervention from outside. Hence, the worth of George’s life lies with
and within him. Hence, a man is allowed to decide the worth of his life and can be allowed to
choose a course of action that suits his satisfaction. Human life here is not worthy because it is a
gift of God, but because the human being chooses to attach worth to it (Cheng, 2017).
Christianity view: The people following the religion of Christianity are usually against the
decision of euthanasia. They strongly believe that human beings are mended in God’s image.
Even to some churches they believe not to interfere with natural death process. They have
general views against euthanasia such as we should respect the fact that God is the mentor of
human beings and birth followed by death is a part of life, so humans got no right to kill any

3WORLDVIEW
person though that person insists to die (Kolade-Faseyi, 2017). The view pointing that humans
are created in God’s image does not refer that humans resemble God, but has potential to survive
rationally and perceive whatever is good. Following these views can help people to live the life
with God’s love. Therefore, proposing euthanasia to anyone willing to die is to provide a
judgement about the current situation as worthwhile which is totally incompatible with the
dignity and worth of the person. Even the individual seeking euthanasia has no right to think
them worthless. According to some churches, they believe that euthanasia can interfere the dying
process as it interrupts the spirit that move towards God (Clements & Koenig, 2014). Christianity
says that humans should be equally valued and believe that values and dignity should be
measured in terms of mobility and achievements. With respect to patients with unmanaged state
of life still persists as living beings so to treat worthless and let them die would be wrong.
Patients with old age and physical with mental disability should also be valued in the same way.
But there lies certain exceptions to some views of Christians that the rationale decisions of every
human being should be respected, even in terms refusing the futile treatment thereby ending their
life. The Christianity faith leads them who follow the views about treating ill people that
community should be involved in caring, providing palliative care and death should be faced
with honesty. Both the lay and the professional should help the ill for preparing towards death
and should make themselves open in discussing about it (Brown & Dominica, 2012).
Buddhism View: The Buddhists do not deal euthanasia explicitly and are against the
involuntary euthanasia (Cundiff, 2012). Buddhists believe voluntary euthanasia to be wrong as it
demonstrates the bad state of mind causing the physical suffering into mental suffering. They
believe the physical pain should be treated with mediating and proper pain killers. They even
believe that to help someone end the life puts the person in bad mental state and must be

4WORLDVIEW
avoided. According to certain Buddhist monastic law, no one should harm themselves and forbid
euthanasia (Kanjanaphitsarn, 2013). Lay person who undertake euthanasia are thought to make a
wrong judgement. Buddhist even believe that the ill person with take a rebirth according to their
karma. Difficulty comes when voluntary euthanasia is looked as suicide. The lord Buddha even
showed suicide tolerance through monks which was used as political weapon during Vietnam
War (Satha-Anand 2013). In Buddhism the end of life will impact on the beginning of the new
life. So the person during their time of death should have selfless and enlightened thoughts, free
from hate, anger and fear. All these views of Buddhism suggest that euthanasia is for those
people who have gained enlightenment and the others should forbid it.
Moral justification in case of George related to Christianity: According the Christianity
views, the life of human being should be valued as they are the creation of God, and humans
have no right to view their life as worthless. Suffering from pain does not forbid the life from
being valuable and should get a dignified death. So, allowing euthanasia to George would be
morally not right in terms of Christianity. Even the physicians should not help or support him in
accepting euthanasia as no one has the right to provide death to anybody. As it is morally not
right to commit suicide, it is also not right to assist someone dying.
Moral justification in case of George related to Buddhism: Most of the Buddhists do not
agree with involuntary euthanasia. According to them with respect to voluntary euthanasia,
person suffering through pain should undergo mediation and pain killers to heal their physical
pain which will also reduce the mental suffering. According to Buddhist view, George seeking
for euthanasia is making an error in judgment and thus should be avoided. But one difficulty in
their views is that the quality of next life of the person will be based on their karma in the
previous life. In Buddhism, the way the life ends reflects the next life. According to them, if

5WORLDVIEW
someone has attained enlightenment can be approved for euthanasia. So with respect to this view
of Buddhism, if George is believed to attained success and enlightenment in his career, his views
should be respected but with hate, fear and anger in his mind should be forbidden from
euthanasia.
After considering both the world-views, it becomes clear that while the Christian
worldview states the importance of human existence which endorses the value of complete
submission to God’s choice, the Buddhists are still liberal enough to allow room for self-
extinction of life in special situations. I believe that Euthanasia should be allowed to George.
This is because he is the owner of his own body, and if he chooses to end his life through
assistance via health physicians, he should be given the consent. It is the right of every human
being to lead a life of dignity, while it is the duty of physicians to ensure maximum well-being of
the patient. Suffering from ALS, George will lose his ability to move, speak or walk, and would
be dependent on artificial systems for breathing as well. I believe what ultimately matters is the
quality of human life one is leading, and George is likely to suffer from a low quality life
because of incurable pain and illness. Every individual should enjoy the right to life according to
most of the religious worldviews. It should be noted that George himself decides to kill himself,
and this is not a case of passive euthanasia that can be regarded morally questionable as it
opposes the ideals of human dignity (Pieper et al., 2016). Though a terminally ill person should
not be denied basic care, he or she should be allowed to refuse treatment that might prove to be
futile or unduly burdensome.

6WORLDVIEW
Reference List:
Brown, E., & Dominica, F. (2012). Around the time of death: culture, religion, and ritual. Oxford
Textbook of Palliative Care for Children, 142.
Chai, P. C. T. (2015). Euthanasia and China: The Traditional Chinese Moral Perspective and Its
Social Justice Implications. Asian Bioethics Review, 7(1), 43-61.
Cheng, F. K. (2017). Buddhist insights into life and death: Overcoming death anxiety. Athens
Journal of Social Sciences, 4(1), 67-87.
Cundiff, D. (2012). Euthanasia is not the answer: A hospice physician’s view. Springer Science
& Business Media.
Ehrman, B. D. (2000). The New Testament: A historical introduction to the early Christian
writings. Oxford University Press, USA.
Fendert, N. E. (2014). Euthanasia in Canada: A Shambhala Buddhist Perspective.
Jerryson, M. (2015). Buddhists and Violence: Historical Continuity/Academic
Incongruities. Religion Compass, 9(5), 141-150.
Kanjanaphitsarn, S. (2013). An Analytical Study of Euthanasia in Buddhism with Special
Reference to the Case of Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu’s Death. International Journal of Buddhist
Thought and Culture, 21, 141-154.
Kolade-Faseyi, I. (2017). The right to die: the place of religion, ethics and the law. Nnamdi
Azikiwe University Journal of International Law and Jurisprudence, 8(1), 100-108.

7WORLDVIEW
Clements, W. M., & Koenig, H. G. (2014). Aging and God: Spiritual pathways to mental
health in midlife and later years. Routledge.
Pieper, J., Hijweege, N., & Smeets, W. (2016). Attentiveness to Religious/Spiritual Coping and
Meaning Questions of Patients. Journal of Empirical Theology, 29(1), 78-100.
Satha-Anand, S. (2013). Question of Violence in Thai Buddhism. Buddhism and Violence:
Militarism and Buddhism in Modern Asia, 175-93.
Stott, J. (2015). Christian mission in the modern world. InterVarsity Press.
Valk, J. (2015). Religion or worldview: Enhancing dialogue in the public square. Marburg
Journal of Religion, 14(1).