SUICIDE
IS A SIN
AND OTHER RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS
Most of the religions of the world condemn
irrational suicide.
Some religions have stronger sanctions than others.
And some individual believers within any given religious tradition
affirm this principle more strongly than other believers.
Even within each faith-community, there are sometimes
differences of opinion concerning what constitutes a
'suicide'.
In theocratic countries of the world,
the laws concerning actions near the end of life
are based on the established religions of those countries.
In such places, the religious authorities decide the laws about
'suicide'.
There is no point in discussing laws based on religion here,
since such laws against 'suicide' are handed down from above
and are not open to public discussion or debate.
In secular countries and states,
the secular laws about end-of-life decisions
usually permit believers of all religions to follow their own faiths.
Sometimes when a major portion of the population is religious,
the lawmakers for that region follow the principles of the
dominant faith,
especially when most of the people belong to one faith-community.
In such cases, the legislators themselves were raised in that faith.
And they might see it as their right (and even duty)
to embody the principles of their faith in the laws they enact.
Truly secular countries carefully separate church
and state:
Organized religion is usually permitted to operate openly,
but whenever laws were written to favor one religious group or another,
they are later removed from the law books
because they violate the principle of separation of church and state.
Laws against the sale birth-control methods might be
an example.
Some states used to prohibit
the distribution of some means of
birth-control
because some religions prohibited 'artificial' means of birth-planning.
Later these laws were all repealed or ruled unconstitutional in the
USA.
They improperly imposed the beliefs of one religion on all the people.
And even some believers in religions that prohibit 'artificial' birth
control
decide for themselves to ignore that moral teaching.
Religious sanctions could still be imposed by those
churches
on their own followers even after birth-control measures became legal.
The churches could tell their members that if they used 'artificial'
birth control,
they were barred from the sacraments.
They could even tell them that they would go to hell
if they used 'artificial' birth control.
No attempt will be made here to sort out the various
moral principles
concerning death-planning
based in religious beliefs.
In secular societies such as most modern nations,
each person who affirms a religious belief
will have to work thru those principles for himself or herself.
Organized religions have a right
to attempt to influence the decisions of their members.
And religious leaders have a right to join in any rational discussion
of all issues related to the end-of-life.
Also religious believers have a right to vote on any public issues
based on their own religious faiths or beliefs.
However, all secular systems of law should resist
attempt
to put religious principles
into the laws.
Some people have been taught that 'suicide is a sin'.
And some of these believers hold this to be an absolute principle,
which is not open to discussion, elaboration, or interpretation.
All forms of chosen death are
prohibited. End of story.
But some religious believers are open to using
rational discussion
to apply religious principles to each bedside situation.
For example, dialysis for patients who suffer from kidney failure
is well accepted by most religious believers.
And most religious leaders and their followers
would also consider it legitimate to discontinue dialysis
when the patient is dying despite this treatment.
Disconnecting life-support systems is not considered
to be 'suicide',
because the resulting death comes from natural causes (eg kidney
failure).
This death comes after
a medical treatment is withdrawn,
but the death is not caused
by 'pulling the plug'.
The death-certificate will say "kidney failure".
Exactly how religious principles apply to each
death-bed situation
will have to be decided by each patient and/or that patient's family.
If they believe it would be a sin to use a certain medical treatment,
then they will not authorize
that course of action.
This principle of respecting religious beliefs is well established in
law,
especially as seen in the right of Jehovah's Witnesses
to refuse blood-transfusions and all blood products.
Another religious principle that should be respected
is the belief that only God can decide when a particular life is over.
This belief is sometimes expressed by objecting to 'playing God':
Humans must not 'play God' by making life-ending decisions.
[Another
discussion explicitly addresses this expression:
"God Will Decide When Life Will End: We Should Not 'Play God' ":
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/SG-GOD.html
]
Another way to manifest this belief is to wait for
God to take us.
We should not hurry
or hasten the dying
process.
Let nature take its course.
However, such religious thinking is seldom applied
to the other kind of medical intervention,
namely slowing or delaying
the dying process.
Are we 'playing God' when we use life-support measures?
Without the respirator or the feeding-tube, the patient would surely
die.
Such religious questions will have to be worked out
between the believers and their religious advisers.
Medical practice should respect religious beliefs whenever
possible.
But when medical principles
and religious principles
conflict
(as for example when religious believers demand futile medical care),
then in secular societies the medical principles must ultimately
prevail.
However, with respect to life-ending decisions,
the exact timing of removing life-supports, for example,
can usually accommodate the religious beliefs of the patient
and/or family.
Using their own religious principles, when is the best time to 'pull
the plug'?
SAFEGUARDS TO PROTECT RELIGIOUS BELIEVERS
The following 12 safeguards make sure
that the consciences of religious believers
are not violated in making any end-of-life choices.
In open societies such as our own,
followers of any religious tradition are free
to apply their own moral principles to their end-of-life situations
in whatever ways seem best to them.
The following safeguards allow ample opportunity
for several different persons
to make sure that religious principles are not violated.
These safeguards are arranged beginning with the
safeguards
that would be most relevant and powerful.
The
blue title links to a
complete explanation of that safeguard.
The red comments explain
how that safeguard respects religious beliefs.
A
MEMBER OF THE CLERGY APPROVES OR QUESTIONS THE CHOICE FOR DEATH
The patient and/or family members
might decide to
consult their clergy-person.
If this professional religious leader says
that all life-ending
decisions are forbidden,
then that patient and his/her family might decide
not to choose even to consider such a practice
as disconnecting life-supports even when the case is hopeless.
On the other hand, the religious leader might say
that nothing in their faith tells them
that certain medical treatments are mandatory.
RELIGIOUS OR
OTHER MORAL PRINCIPLES
APPLIED TO THIS
LIFE-ENDING DECISION
When the patient does in fact embrace a certain set
of moral principles,
written statements can be created explaining how those principles
might apply to the medical decisions at hand.
ADVANCE
DIRECTIVE FOR MEDICAL CARE
Each comprehensive Advance Directive for Medical Care
has a section
for religious beliefs
—since
one's faith is often very important for making end-of-life
decisions.
When the patient has stated the most relevant principles in advance,
then there should be much less confusion at the bedside
when religious or moral principles might have some bearing
on the decisions that need to be made.
REQUESTS FOR
DEATH FROM THE PATIENT
When the patient makes a request for death,
he or she might express some relevant religious beliefs.
What implications do his or her religious beliefs
have for the patient's request for death?
INFORMED
CONSENT FROM THE PATIENT
When the patient is asked to give informed consent,
he or she might also bring religious principles to bear on the decision.
If, for example, no choices may be permitted that will lead to death,
then the patient will never
give consent for any medical procedure
that will include any of those prohibited options.
UNBEARABLE
SUFFERING
Suffering might have some religious meaning for the
patient.
If so, this will lead to different decisions
about the best pathway
towards death.
How does the patient incorporate suffering
into his or her
thinking about
death?
When (if ever) does suffering become meaningless for the patient?
How
does the patient's belief-system
deal with protracted, unbearable
suffering?
UNBEARABLE
PSYCHOLOGICAL SUFFERING
The patient
might also be suffering psychologically or spiritually.
And this should be taken into
account in all end-of-life decisions.
Sometimes the religious beliefs of the patient
will be a cause of
psychological suffering.
How will any such conflicts be resolved?
For example, is the patient worried about going to hell?
Can confession and absolution
resolve this form of psychological
or spiritual suffering?
STATEMENTS
FROM FAMILY MEMBERS
AFFIRMING OR
QUESTIONING THE CHOSEN DEATH
When family members are asked to create their own
written statements,
they also are free to mention any relevant religious beliefs or
principles.
The family might have a range
of moral and religious systems.
In case of conflicts about end-of-life decisions,
the patient or the duly-authorized proxies
must make the final
decisions.
But at least all points of view will have been heard
before the deciders go ahead with
whatever seems wisest
and most moral
to them.
PHYSICIAN'S
STATEMENT OF CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS
The
physician's summary of the patient's physical condition
will be the basic factual
background for making end-of-life decisions.
In most cases, the physician will
not express any religious views.
INDEPENDENT
PHYSICIAN REVIEWS THE CONDITION AND PROGNOSIS
A second
physician will also issue a written statement,
giving an independent assessment
of the patient's condition and prognosis.
This also will be taken into
account by the deciders,
who are free to apply any moral or
religious principles they wish.
PSYCHOLOGICAL
CONSULTANT EVALUATES
THE PATIENT'S
ABILITY TO MAKE MEDICAL DECISIONS
A
psychological professional will evaluate the patient's abilities
to make wise medical decisions.
And this consultant should not
attempt to override any religious beliefs
or other moral principles that the
patient and/or the family wish to use.
ETHICS
COMMITTEE REVIEWS THE LIFE-ENDING DECISION
The institution caring for the patient might
have an ethics committee
that could be asked to review the plans for the last year of the
patient.
And
if this committee knows of any relevant religious or moral views,
they should not attempt to override
these principles.
Rather, the ethics committee should make sure
that all relevant ethical principles are brought to bear
on the final decisions for this life.
If these
safeguards do not seem sufficient
to prevent trampling on the
religious beliefs of the patient,
then there are several other
safeguards
that might be brought to bear on the
end-of-life decisions.
Created March 29, 2007; revised
4-1-2007; 11-12-2008; 11-13-2008; 1-25-2009; 2-22-2009;
1-17-2010;
4-2-2010; 5-21-2010; 1-11-2011; 2-26-2011; 6-28-2011; 12-22-2011;
1-27-2012