FREE ESSAY ON CHRISTIAN LOVE IN END OF LIFE ISSUES

CHRISTIAN LOVE IN END OF LIFE ISSUES

Discussion of end of life issues can be quite complex. Arguments on both sides of the
issue can be extremely passionate due to the presence of deeply held emotional beliefs
among opponents. This characteristic of the debate is fully inescapable in instances such
as these. Despite the natural difficulty in forming arguments supporting a position on an
end of life issue, I believe that there are some general principles which allow for the
formation of a successful foundation. In taking a stance on heated issues , it is
important to build an argument around fundamental concepts. By following this basic
pattern, I find it possible to construct an argument against euthanasia and
physician-assisted suicide on the basis of the idea of Christian Love. 
The word love holds many different meanings for many different people. The concept of
Christian love is similar in that it also includes a multitude of facets. However, the
Catechism of the Catholic Church does appear to outline the basic premise of love. Love
is "the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the
image and likeness of God who is himself love" (1604). The definition found in the
Catechism establishes that it is the calling of every person to love. This is the
essential fundamental from which all of humanity is meant to proceed. Difficulties arise
in attempting to answer this innate call. Individuals may have different views on what
exactly it means to answer the call to love. We will first ponder this in light of the
circumstances of the end of life situation. In any position on end of life situations,
two scenarios may be present. Either acting to preserve life will outweigh the relief of
suffering or relieving suffering will outweigh the preservation of life. Examples are
present within Christian teaching which are fully applicable to the question of
preservation of life at all costs. An excellent example can be found in the incarnate
nature of Jesus Christ. "Christ Jesus, Who, though he was in the form of God, did not
regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the
form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled
himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross" (Phil 2:6-8). In this example
of Christ's love, lessons abound. Love cannot always seek to possess. Love cannot be used
to justify the decision to preserve life at all costs and for as long as possible. Part
of true love is letting go. In the incarnation of the Word, Jesus did not cling to
equality with God at all costs. True love of humanity allowed Christ to let go of pure
divinity, just as true love sometimes calls for a person to let go of life. Actions that
attempt to preserve life unconditionally, then, fail to adhere to an important facet
comprising Christian love. True love sometimes must learn to let go. Therefore,
assertions supporting the preservation of life at all costs are invalid.
The situation involving the elimination of suffering at all costs cannot be dealt with
quite as easily as the unconditional preservation of life. We first must discuss the
situation of allowing someone to die. In this passive action, nature simply is running
its course. In allowing a person to die there is an acceptance of God's natural order
which mimics Christ's own becoming obedient unto death, including the suffering of death
on the cross. Based on this example, it appears that the possibility of letting die can
be established as a highly permissible act, an act fully in conjunction with the
principles of Christian love. Take for instance a terminal patient living out his or her
final days. If at some point the patient stopped breathing, according to the principles
of love, it would be permissible to withhold procedures of resuscitation and allow the
patient to die. It would be morally wrong, however, to give the patient an injection to
end suffering quickly and painlessly. Initially, this may potentially be highly
contradictory. The end of each act is the same. Death results, and in either instance,
death has been imminent for some time. The only difference between the two possibilities
is that in the latter, the period of suffering is shortened. This would appear to be the
noble action. However, while on the surface this is so, a deeper investigation must occur
to uncover the moral wrong. To grasp the central issue, "we must distinguish what we aim
in our action from the result of the action" (Meilaender 82). In the instance of letting
die, we aim to relieve the suffering of the patient by letting go under the auspices of
Christian love. Based on this aim, the resulting death is justified. In the reverse,
however, the aim of the injection is to bring about the death of the patient. The result
of the action is the relief of suffering. It would be foolish to argue that the resultant
relief of suffering is a negative situation. Clearly, viewed independently, the resulting
relief is a fully positive occurrence. However, the aim of purposely causing death is
wholly negative and impermissible. Because the aim is not morally acceptable, the result
of this aim, however positive or beneficial, is invalid as a source of justification.
Based on this aim vs. result criteria, it is not possible to justify a
relief-of-suffering-at-all-costs claim. Unconditional relief of suffering will involve a
process in which the aim of the action is morally wrong. Although the result appears
positive, this approach to end of life situations is flawed because its aims are morally
impermissible. Refuting the arguments that seek to relieve suffering may seem to be
rather callous. "It ought to be the case that dying people not suffer terribly. But, at
least for the Christian, it does not follow from that 'ought to be' that we 'ought to do'
whatever is necessary- even euthanasia- to relieve them of that suffering" (Meilaender
84). In these cases, then, the only morally permissible action is that with an allowable
aim. On the basis of this aim vs. result framework, questions concerning the withdrawal
of food and drink are also easily addressed. Problems arise in some of the justification
used for performing this action. It is not possible to,
when withdrawing food from the permanently unconscious person, properly claim that our
intention is to cease useless treatment for a dying patient. These patients are not
dying, and we cease no treatment for a dying patient. These patients are not dying, and
we cease no treatment aimed at disease; rather, we withdraw the nourishment that sustains
all human beings whether healthy or ill, and we do so when the only result of our action
can be death. At what, other than that death, could we be aiming? (Meilaender 105)
The result of this action may be viewed as beneficial by others. It is conceivable that
supporters might make the claim that ending the life of a person in this situation is
another example of alleviating prolonged suffering. However, once again, a beneficial
result must not be viewed in a type of consequentialist interpretation. Again, the aim of
the action is to bring about death. We have previously established that it is the aim of
an action which provides morality to it. Therefore, in these situations, aim supercedes
the result.
When pondering the aim of an action, the inclination may arise to include the motive of
the action. Initially, this may seem beneficial, but the inclusion of motive brings the
potential for subsequent clouding of the issue. "One might think that Christian emphasis
on the overriding importance of love as a motive would suggest that whatever was done out
of love was right" (Meilaender 86). However, this clearly cannot be the case. A motive of
love might drive someone to act to relieve the suffering of another. In this instance,
the result of the action, relief of suffering is good. Furthermore, the motive of love is
also positive. Still, though, if this result, even while intended positively, is achieved
through a negative aim, all positives are overridden. As has been stated before, no
negative aim can possibly be made morally permissible simply on the basis of positive
results. To this we shall now add, no negative aim can possibly become morally allowable
because of positive motive. By eliminating from consideration this condition of motive,
we have affirmed the notion that the morality of an action is determined by its aim.
We shall move now to another important aspect of Christian love. "Barth writes that human
life 'must always be regarded as a divine act of trust'" (Meilaender 86). If this is
taken to be true, human life is a gift. Because of this status as a gift, a degree of
respect should be invoked. But, this gift of life is not greater than all else. Limits
are present. It is the responsibility of humanity to live within these limits. This,
then, presents a framework for the obedience of humanity to God. Because of the respect
for this gift of life, humanity must respect and obey the limits of this gift set forth
by God. Examples of Christ's own obedience abound. Philippians 2 mentions the obedience
of Christ to the will of the father. This is an important model for the whole of
humanity. "Jesus goes to the cross in the name of obedience and his Father. We need not
glorify or seek suffering, but we must be struck by the fact that a human being who is a
willing sufferer stands squarely in the center of Christian piety" (Meilaender 88). This
is an important consideration to be made. 
Suffering is a part of the human condition, and, as such, should not be viewed as
entirely negative. This quality of suffering is vividly outlined in "Euthanasia," a
Declaration of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, written by Pope
John Paul II on May 5, 1980. Just as life is a true gift from God, it can also be
declared that death is a true gift from God. While death, or any suffering associated
with it, is undesirable to the human mind, it is a strong opportunity to grow closer to
Christ. "As St. Paul says, 'while we live we are responsible to the Lord, and when we die
we die as His servants. Both in life and in death we are the Lord's'" (John Paul II 651).
Suffering is a cross for humanity to bear, with rewards to follow after this life.
"Suffering, especially in the final moments of life, has a special place in God's plan of
salvation. It is sharing in the passion of Christ and unites the person with the
redemptive sacrifice which Christ offered in obedience to the Father's will" (John Paul
II 652-653). Humans must live their lives according to God's plan. Any action taken
against the gift of life must be seen as a complete rejection of God's supremacy and
vision. If this occurs, there has been a great failure to follow Christ's example of
Obedience to the will of God. 
The desire to avoid suffering is common among all people. Fear of pain and suffering is
natural. Christianity is not attempting to claim that we should have no fear of pain and
suffering, or that we should seek it out. "The Christian mind has certainly not
recommended that we seek suffering or call it an unqualified good, but it is an evil
that, when endured faithfully, can be redemptive" (Meilaender 90). Once we have accepted
the potential for redemptive value in suffering, our approach to dealing with it is
altered. Realizing that suffering is important, the goal of love shifts from attempting
to alleviate suffering. There should be a movement from minimizing suffering to
maximizing love and care (Meilaender 90). In situations such as these, sometimes there is
nothing more that can be done than to try to empathize with the patient, to suffer along
with the sufferer. 
What exactly do we find ourselves left with? We have now achieved an understanding that
issues at the end of life cannot be fully understood without the concept of Christian
love. It is possible for us to declare, as Meilaender does, that "love could never
euthanatize" (92). Some might argue that this point is inherently flawed. However, this
is the foundation of the Christian stance on this issue. In the Christian view, love
would not permit any action which occurs with the overall aim of death. Opposing claims
that humanitarian acts are those of love miss this essential point. Meilaender describes
the designation of these Humanitarian acts as loving as a matter of temptation. They are
temptation in that they are examples of an attempt to usurp the authority of God. We have
previously established that humanity includes the inherent requirement of obedience to
God, based on respect for God's gift of life. True respect of that gift must be
accompanied by an understanding of the limits which are imposed upon humanity. Any
definition of love in a humanitarian manner moves the concept beyond the boundaries of
the limits imposed by God. This must, therefore, disallowed. Accepting, then, that love
is an essential, but limited, component of humanity, it must be realized that any actions
which aim to bring about the end of life are inherently impermissible. 
Bibliography
Works Cited
Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
Meilaender, Gilbert. The Limits of Love. University Park: The Pennsylvania State 
University Press, 1987.
Pope John Paul II. "Euthanasia." On Moral Medicine. 1998 2nd Ed.