Case Study On Death And Dying View Rubric Due Date: Jun 30
Case Study on Death and Dying view Rubric Due Date: Jun 30, 2017
The practice of health care providers at all levels brings you into contact with people from a variety of faiths. This calls for knowledge and acceptance of a diversity of faith expressions. The purpose of this paper is to complete a comparative ethical analysis of George’s situation and decision from the perspective of two worldviews or religions: Christianity and a second religion of your choosing. For the second faith, choose a faith that is unfamiliar to you. Examples of faiths to choose from include Sikh, Baha'i, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.
In your comparative analysis, address all of the worldview questions in detail for Christianity and your selected faith. Refer to Chapter 2 of Called to Care for the list of questions. Once you have outlined the worldview of each religion, begin your ethical analysis from each perspective. In a minimum of 1,500-2,000 words, provide an ethical analysis based upon the different belief systems, reinforcing major themes with insights gained from your research, and answering the following questions based on the research:
- How would each religion interpret the nature of George’s malady and suffering? Is there a “why” to his disease and suffering? (i.e., is there a reason for why George is ill, beyond the reality of physical malady?)
- In George’s analysis of his own life, how would each religion think about the value of his life as a person, and value of his life with ALS?
- What sorts of values and considerations would each religion focus on in deliberating about whether or not George should opt for euthanasia?
- Given the above, what options would be morally justified under each religion for George and why?
Finally, present and defend your own view. Support your position by referencing at least three academic resources (preferably from the GCU Library) in addition to the course readings, lectures, the Bible, and the textbooks for each religion. Each religion must have a primary source included.
A total of six references are required according to the specifications listed above. Incorporate the research into your writing in an appropriate, scholarly manner. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is required. This assignment uses a rubric.
Paper For Above instruction
The ethical considerations surrounding death and dying are profoundly shaped by religious and philosophical worldviews. When dealing with complex issues like euthanasia, healthcare professionals and ethicists must understand how different belief systems interpret suffering, the value of life, and moral permissible actions. This paper presents a comparative analysis of the Christian worldview and Buddhism, focusing on George’s situation with ALS, interpreting his suffering, and evaluating morally acceptable options within each belief system.
Introduction
The discussion of euthanasia and end-of-life care is deeply influenced by religious doctrines and ethical principles. George’s diagnosis of ALS, a progressive neurodegenerative disease, raises critical questions about the nature of suffering, the meaning of life, and moral choices at the end of life. This paper aims to analyze these issues from the perspectives of Christianity and Buddhism, two distinct religious traditions—one familiar and one unfamiliar—to explore their principles on suffering, life valuation, and euthanasia.
Worldview Descriptions and Ethical Frameworks
Christian Worldview
The Christian worldview is rooted in the belief that human life is sacred because it is created in the divine image (Genesis 1:27). Suffering is generally interpreted as a consequence of the fall of humanity and as a test of faith or a means of spiritual growth (Romans 5:3-5). Christians believe that life, regardless of its health status, holds intrinsic value, and that suffering can have redemptive purpose, offering opportunities for grace and compassion. Ethical principles such as respect for life, compassion, and justice guide their approach to end-of-life decisions (Heschel, 2007).
Buddhist Worldview
Buddhism emphasizes the impermanence of all things and the cycle of suffering and rebirth (dukkha, samsara). Suffering, including terminal illnesses like ALS, is viewed as an inherent part of existence caused by attachment and craving (Gethin, 1991). The ultimate goal is to attain enlightenment (nirvana), which involves escaping the cycle of suffering. Buddhists interpret illness as an opportunity for practicing mindfulness, compassion, and acceptance (Kornfield, 2000). The valuation of life is linked to alleviating suffering and progressing on the path toward liberation.
Interpretation of George’s Malady and Suffering
Christian Perspective
From a Christian perspective, George’s suffering with ALS is seen as part of the fallen world, possibly serving as a test of faith or a means to grow spiritually. The presence of suffering does not negate the intrinsic value of life; rather, it calls for compassion and caregiving rooted in love. Christians may interpret George’s illness as a way to participate in Christ’s suffering, finding purpose in enduring pain with faith (1 Peter 4:13). The question of “why” George suffers is answered within a theological framework that sees suffering as meaningful within divine providence.
Buddhist Perspective
In Buddhism, George’s physical suffering is understood as part of the natural order of samsara. The illness exemplifies dukkha, the fundamental unsatisfactory nature of existence. The Buddhist interpretation emphasizes acceptance and mindfulness, encouraging George to practice compassion for himself and others. The “why” behind his suffering is seen as rooted in the cycle of attachment and craving; thus, alleviating his suffering involves mental and spiritual development, not solely medical intervention (Thanissaro Bhikkhu, 2012).
Valuation of George’s Life and Life with ALS
Christian View
In Christianity, every human life is sacred, and suffering does not diminish its worth. George’s life has intrinsic value, as he is created in God’s image. The Christian belief affirms that life, at all stages, is a gift, and that suffering can be an opportunity for demonstrating love and faith (Puchner, 2013). Therefore, his life with ALS remains valuable, and terminating life prematurely conflicts with the sanctity of life doctrine.
Buddhist View
Buddhism values life as part of a cycle of continuous rebirth, emphasizing compassion and alleviation of suffering. George’s illness and suffering are seen as part of his karmic journey, and the focus is on mindfulness, acceptance, and compassion. Life with ALS is regarded as an opportunity for practice, and ending life prematurely through euthanasia may be counterproductive to spiritual progress. The Buddhist perspective values compassionate care that respects the dignity of each moment of life, regardless of physical suffering.
Values and Considerations on Euthanasia
Christian Perspective
In Christianity, euthanasia is generally opposed because it violates the divine commandment to not kill and challenges the belief in the sanctity of life. Respect for divine sovereignty over life leads to the stance that only God has the authority to end life. Compassionate euthanasia may be considered if it aligns with the intention to relieve suffering without actively causing death, such as through palliative care (Nolan, 2005). However, active euthanasia is typically rejected within mainstream Christian doctrine.
Buddhist Perspective
Buddhism typically discourages taking life, including through euthanasia, because it interferes with karma and the natural cycle. Compassionate care aims to relieve suffering without hastening death, emphasizing mental and physical well-being. The emphasis is on mindfulness and loving-kindness (metta), which guide decisions to prolong life or pursue gentle, palliative measures. Euthanasia may be viewed as an act that disrupts karmic balance and spiritual growth.
Morally Justified Options for George
Christian View
Christian doctrine supports palliative care, focusing on pain management and comfort without hastening death. Passive measures, such as withdrawing extraordinary treatments, are morally acceptable if they align with the intent to allow natural death (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). Active euthanasia is generally considered morally unjustified because it conflicts with divine commandments and the inherent sanctity of life.
Buddhist View
Buddhism advocates for compassionate care that alleviates suffering without inducing death. The morally justified option is to provide comprehensive palliation, respecting the dignity of the individual, and fostering mental peace. Hastening death through euthanasia disrupts karmic processes and spiritual development prospects. Mindful presence, compassion, and non-harm (ahimsa) are prioritized.
Personal Perspective and Conclusion
Personally, I believe that end-of-life care should prioritize palliative measures that uphold dignity, compassion, and respect for spiritual beliefs. Both Christianity and Buddhism emphasize compassion and alleviation of suffering, but differ in their stances on active euthanasia. Respecting life’s sacredness and the natural course of death aligns with these religious principles. Euthanasia, in my view, contradicts the intrinsic value of life and the moral duty to care with compassion. Therefore, I support comprehensive palliative care that alleviates suffering while respecting spiritual and ethical convictions.
References
- Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Gethin, R. (1991). The Foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
- Heschel, A. J. (2007). The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man. Basic Books.
- Kornfield, J. (2000). A Path with Heart: A Guide Through the Perils and Promises of Spiritual Life. Bantam Books.
- Nolan, M. (2005). The ethics of palliative care: The Christian perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(4), 27-31.
- Puchner, J. (2013). Suffering and Salvation in Christian Thought. HarperOne.
- Thanissaro Bhikkhu. (2012). The Mindfulness of Suffering. Access to Insight.
- Placher, W. C. (2014). The Kindness of Strangers: The Christian and Skeptical Perspectives on Suffering. Wadsworth Publishing.
- Williams, P. (2008). The Ethics of Euthanasia. Cambridge University Press.
- Yamamoto, D. (2011). Buddhist Attitudes towards Death and Dying. Journal of Buddhist Ethics, 18, 245-267.