A common question is: ‘Whose life is it, anyway?’ The decision is primarily the patient’s because he is the custodian of the Creator’s gift of life. (Acts 17:28) However, if a patient becomes incompetent, the next of kin or an appointed agent may serve as a substitute decision maker. In either case the surrogate should honor and assert the patient’s rights, not his own. Similarly, in the case of minor children, parents have the God-given duty and legal right to decide for their offspring.—Psalm 127:3.
On the other hand, as stated in the Columbia Law Review, “there is widespread recognition that a courtroom is not the proper forum for making treatment choices. . . . Courts are ill-equipped to assume the role of substitute decision maker.” As for the physician, would it not be unethical for him to force his own religious convictions upon the patient? He should act within the dictates of the patient’s religion or withdraw from the case if his religious beliefs produce a serious conflict of conscience. Often the team approach is best, with physician, minister, and family cooperating with the patient for a decision in his best interests.
Is it right to employ “positive” euthanasia, deliberately putting an individual to death? What about “negative” euthanasia, allowing a terminally ill person to die by not initiating or continuing “extraordinary” treatment that would only forestall death for a short time?
Euthanasia is illegal in the United States, Canada and almost all other countries. It is true that few people draw the full penalty from this crime. However, it is not only fear of penalties, but “conscience” that should motivate Christians to obey the laws of the land.—Rom. 13:5.
But what if the question is whether to begin or to keep up special treatment where death is imminent and cannot be avoided? Medical authorities may state that the best they could do would be to stretch out the dying process by employing mechanical devices such as respirators to keep the lungs breathing, cardiac stimulators and other extraordinary means to sustain the patient. Such procedures might be very costly and bring further discomfort to the dying person. Does the Bible require that such measures be taken? No, in such a case allowing death to take its course uninhibited would not violate any law of God. There is no Scriptural requirement to lengthen a dying process that is already well under way.
Doctors admit that “intensive efforts to maintain life can, in reality, become prolongation of dying, rather than prolongation of living.” So, what if doctors say the best they could do would be to stretch out the dying process by mechanical devices? Where death is clearly imminent or unavoidable, the Bible does not require the artificial lengthening of the dying process. Allowing death to take its course under such circumstances would not violate any law of God.
However, life is a sacred gift from our Creator. (Psalm 36:9) It is to be treasured. Out of respect for God’s view of life, out of regard for secular law, and in order to hold a good conscience, a Christian would never intentionally cause anyone’s death.—Exodus 20:13; Romans 13:1, 5.
Often the reason why people consider euthanasia is that there appears to be no hope of relief for the one who is suffering. While some cases are beyond the capacity of science to solve, the Bible provides a genuine hope that sickness and death will disappear from the earth in the near future. Revelation 21:1-4 speaks of a new order of things, symbolically called “a new heaven and a new earth” in which “death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.”
Whatever the outcome of the decision, Christians can rely on the Creator’s promise of a time when no one will say, “I am sick.” (Isaiah 33:24) For the terminally ill, there is God’s marvelous promise of a resurrection to a paradise of health and life under God’s Kingdom. (Acts 24:15; Revelation 21:1-4) That time is near when, through Jesus Christ, Jehovah God will grant to obedient humans the right to live, eternally!—John 3:36.