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,
because such laws against 'suicide' are
handed down from above
and are not open to public discussion or
debate.
In secular countries and
states,
the 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 some 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these laws were all repealed or ruled unconstitutional in the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.
Some churches denied the sacraments
to members who used 'artificial' birth-control.
They could even tell their members that
they would go to hell
if they used 'artificial' methods for
planning their children.
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 governments should resist
attempts
to
put religious principles into 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 use 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 called
'suicide'.
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'
":
https://s3.amazonaws.com/aws-website-jamesleonardpark---freelibrary-3puxk/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 process of dying.
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 advisors.
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 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 CHOOSING DEATH
The patient and/or family members might 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 never consider any practice
such 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 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 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 must be made.
REQUESTS
FOR DEATH FROM THE PATIENT
When the
patient makes a request for death,
he or she might mention some
relevant religious faith.
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 apply religious principles to the decision.
For example, if shortening the process of dying is prohibited,
then
the patient will never
give consent
for any medical procedure that might lead to an earlier death.
UNBEARABLE
SUFFERING
Suffering might have some
religious meaning for the patient.
How does suffering
figure in the patient's 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
for some sin?
Can confession and absolution
resolve this form
of psychological or spiritual suffering?
STATEMENTS
FROM FAMILY MEMBERS
AFFIRMING
OR
QUESTIONING CHOOSING DEATH
When
family members 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 might be asked to talk with the patient
to
see if any chosen death is well based in reality.
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
such 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; 2-21-2012;
3-28-2012; 7-18-2012; 9-12-2012;
3-28-2013; 6-20-2013; 7-17-2014;
10-10-2014; 4-6-2017; 2-1-2018; 8-23-2018; 5-13-2020;
This
discussion of whether suicide is a sin
and how religious principles might apply to end-of-life
decision-making
has become Chapter 9 of How
to Die: Safeguards for Life-Ending Decisions:
"Suicide is
a Sin and other Religious Objections".
Go
to other dangers,
mistakes, & abuses of the right-to-die.
Go to
the beginning of this website
James
Leonard Park—Free
Library