-
Principality Of Euthanasia Being Wrong
I was reading ‘Medical Ethics- A very Short introduction’ by Michael Dunn and Tony Hope (reference for anyone who wants to explore this argument further- it’s a very short book).
I will attempt to paraphrase the argument made for euthanasia: killing is only principally wrong when death is considered a harm. If death were not harmful then killing would not be wrong.
In this case- the maxim of killing being forbidden under Islam would allow for this logical allowance. With the examples in maidah 32 being two like travelling and being sick and prayer- examples and not a restrictive requirement.
Is there anything principally wrong with this argument and if not shouldn’t euthanasia be allowed?
-
8 Replies
-
Principality Of Euthanasia Being Wrong
updated 1 year, 6 months ago
4 Members
·
8
Replies
-
The argument of ‘this is God’s job’ (to kill or keep alive) must be supported from God himself. Where has he informed us that only he has the authority to take the life of someone? Though this is separate from the above argument, the above argument should be kept in mind when formulating a response.
-
I challenge the statement “killing is only principally wrong when death is considered a harm. If death were not harmful then killing would not be wrong” with a counter “Killing is always wrong unless there is a moral basis availabe for it. If there is no such moral basis then killing would always be wrong“.
Then question arises who will decide if it is causing harm or not: that person, his family, the society or the state? And what gives one more right over another to decide for life of a an individual person who is a part of both familial and societal structure in a society. This cannot be done unless there is a clear moral basis available for that, which lies indisputably in Maruf and Munkir across the globe, irrespective of religion.
-
‘Killing is always wrong unless there is a moral basis availabe for it. If there is no such moral basis then killing would always be wrong’
Why?
‘Then question arises who will decide if it is causing harm or not’
The patient themselves. If they cannot then most patients assign a next of kin. If this doesn’t happen then we can create legislation of which there is already a lot.
-
-
Hopefully this note in Al-Bayan for Quran verse 17:33 will help:
156 The fifth directive is that no one should kill any one. This is a mention of the sanctity of human life which it always has had as per morality and religion. The Quran has informed us that prior to this, the Israelites were also given this directive and the Almighty had ordained that killing one human being is like killing the whole of mankind. It has also specified that the life of a human being can only be taken in two circumstances: when a person has killed someone or when a person while rebelling against the collective system goes after the life, wealth or honour of others. Apart from these two circumstances, every killing is an unjustified act the punishment of which is eternal Hell according to the Quran (5:32; 25:68-69).
-
Well I don’t want to come to the Quran right now. But if we must then we would view the directives of the Quran under the overarching principle (if it can be established) that killing is generally bad as it is a harm. One could argue there were not many situations with ancient medicine in which situations of euthanasia would arise
-
Killing is morally wrong in general and Quran has explicitly set the boundaries in this regard. After this there’s no argument left about the subjectivity of harm or no harm.
-
-
Faisal saheb, the verse cited is about killing a person who is not willing to be killed but caught in an offence to be executed. On the other hand, the issue raised by Ahmad saheb is about a person who is willing to be dead. On what ground it is forbidden not to take one’s life?
To me it is not morally right for a person to give away his or her life, as it is the Munkar, an established universal norm. Moral excuses is missing. This covers both Umar saheb and your argument.
The second reason can be the TEST for which man has been created. So he cannot decide to end this test.
-
Thank you very much for your guidance Irfan sahab. I will certainly review my understanding.
In my current understanding life has been granted sanctity so there’s no room for anyone to kill another person for any reason other than the two explicitly stated. Even if a person commits suicide, it will inherently be a wrongful act. Depending on the severity of the circumstances God may forgive such a person, however, it will be for God to decide; there’s no way for us to determine how that person shall be dealt with in the hereafter. Similarly, we have no way of conclusively determining in this world whether or not a given person’s condition is unbearable enough to where we can euthanize him. Besides, the motivation for euthanasia is to relieve the physical pain and suffering of another person. We know that in certain instances emotional pain can be as strong, if not greater, than any physical pain. How shall that be dealt with in the context of euthanasia? Can a person be euthanized just because he claims that his pain is unbearable?
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
