From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article
|Part of a series on|
There are many religious views on euthanasia, although many moral theologians are critical of the procedure.
There are many views among Buddhists on the issue of euthanasia, but many are critical of the procedure.
An important value of Buddhism teaching is compassion. Compassion is used by some Buddhists as a justification for euthanasia because the person suffering is relieved of pain. However, it is still immoral "to embark on any course of action whose aim is to destroy human life, irrespective of the quality of the individual's motive." 
In Theravada Buddhism a lay person daily recites the simple formula: "I undertake the precept to abstain from destroying living beings." For Buddhist monastics (bhikkhu) however the rules are more explicitly spelled out. For example, in the monastic code (Patimokkha), it states:
The declaration on Euthanasia is the Roman Catholic Church's official document on the topic of euthanasia, a statement that was issued as by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1980.
Catholic teaching condemns euthanasia as a "crime against life" and a "crime against God". The teaching of the Catholic Church on euthanasia rests on several core principles of Catholic ethics, including the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, concomitant human rights, due proportionality in casuistic remedies, the unavoidability of death, and the importance of charity. It has been argued that these are relatively recent positions, but whatever the position of individual Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church's viewpoint is unequivocal.
Protestant denominations vary widely on their approach to euthanasia and physician assisted death. Since the 1970s, Evangelical churches have worked with Roman Catholics on a sanctity of life approach, though some Evangelicals may be adopting a more exceptionless opposition. While liberal Protestant denominations have largely eschewed euthanasia, many individual advocates (such as Joseph Fletcher) and euthanasia society activists have been Protestant clergy and laity. As physician assisted dying has obtained greater legal support, some liberal Protestant denominations have offered religious arguments and support for limited forms of euthanasia.
It is one of the prevalent assumptions of Western religious culture that the Bible clearly and emphatically forbids suicide. Inspection of biblical texts, however, shows that this is by no means the case. There is no explicit prohibition of suicide in the Bible. The biblical texts do describe a number of cases of suicide: eight in the Old Testament, two in the Apocrypha and one in the New Testament. None of these passages offers explicit comment on the morality of the act: nor is there anywhere in the Bible an explicit discussion of the ethical issues. The first formulation against suicide was St Augustine in the 4th Century. During the early years of Christianity, many believers chose suicide over the difficult life of religious persecution. Some early Christian writers maintained that a self-chosen death was a goal for the genuinely pious to aspire. The number of Christian martyrs and mass suicides rose so quickly that the ruling Jewish faction decided to forbid eulogies and public mourning for those who died by their own hand. Thus began the stigmatization of suicide in Judeo-Christian culture (and by extension, assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia). The first church-led condemnation of suicide occurred when Jewish leaders refused to allow the bodies of Christian suicide victims to be buried in hallowed ground.
Groups claiming to speak for Christians rather than the official viewpoints of the Christian clergy have sprung up in a number of countries.
There are two Hindu points of view on euthanasia. By helping to end a painful life a person is performing a good deed and so fulfilling their moral obligations. On the other hand, by helping to end a life, even one filled with suffering, a person is disturbing the timing of the cycle of death and rebirth. This is a bad thing to do, and those involved in the euthanasia will take on the remaining karma of the patient.
It is clearly stated in the Vedas that man has only two trust worthy friends in life, the first is called Vidya (knowledge), and the 2nd is called Mrityu (Death). The former is something that is beneficial and a requirement in life, and the latter is something that is inevitable sometimes even unexpected. It is not the euthanasia that is the act of sin, but worldy attachment which causes euthanasia to be looked upon as an act of sin. Even a Sannyasin or Sannyasini if they decide to, are permitted to end his or her life with the hope of reaching moksha i.e. emancipation of the soul.
Islam categorically forbids all forms of suicide and any action that may help another to kill themselves.  It is forbidden for a Muslim to plan, or come to know through self-will, the time of his own death in advance. The precedent for this comes from the Islamic Prophet Muhammad having refused to bless the body of a person who had committed suicide. If an individual is suffering from a terminal illness, it is permissible for the individual to refuse medication and/or resuscitation. Other examples include individuals suffering from kidney failure who refuse dialysis treatments and cancer patients who refuse chemotherapy.
Mahavira Varadhmana explicitly allows a sharavak (follower of Jainism) full consent to put an end to his or her life if the sharavak feels that such a stage is near that moksha can be achieved this way. Liberation from the cycles of lives being the primary objective in the religion. Sallekhana (also Santhara, Samadhi-marana, Samnyasa-marana), is the Jain religious ritual of suicide by fasting. It is not classed as suicide in the Jain religion. The process is still controversial in parts of India. Jain websites recommend finding a place where it is not actively opposed and there is an apparently supportive community. Estimates fro death by this means range from 100 to 240 a year. Preventing santhara invites social ostracism.
Like the trend among Protestants, Jewish medical ethics have become divided, partly on denominational lines, over euthanasia and end of life treatment since the 1970s. Generally, Jewish thinkers oppose voluntary euthanasia, often vigorously, though there is some backing for voluntary passive euthanasia in limited circumstances. Likewise, within the Conservative Judaism movement, there has been increasing support for passive euthanasia (PAD) In Reform Judaism responsa, the preponderance of anti-euthanasia sentiment has shifted in recent years to increasing support for certain passive euthanasia options. Secular Judaism is a separate category with increasing support for euthanasia. A popular sympathiser for euthanasia is Rabbi Miriam Jerris.
A study performed in 2010 investigated elderly Jewish women who identified themselves as either Hasidic Orthodox, non-Hasidic Orthodox, or secularized Orthodox in their faith. The study found that all of the Hasidic Orthodox responders disapproved of voluntary euthanasia whereas a majority of the secularized Orthodox responders approved of it.
In Japan, where the dominant religion is Shinto, 69% of the religious organisations agree with the act of voluntary passive euthanasia. The corresponding figure was 75% when the family asked for it. In Shinto, the prolongation of life using artificial means is a disgraceful act against life. Views on active euthanasia are mixed, with 25% Shinto and Buddhist organisations in Japan supporting voluntary active euthanasia.
The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) recommends observing the ethics and culture of the resident country when determining euthanasia. In 1988 the UUA gathered to share a commitment to The Right to Die with Dignity document which included a resolution supporting self-determination in dying.
Some metadata analysis has supported the hypothesis that nurses’ attitudes towards euthanasia and physician assisted suicide are influenced by religion and world view. Attributing more importance to religion also seems to make agreement with euthanasia and physician assisted suicide less likely. A 1995 study of public opinion found that the tendency to see a distinction between active euthanasia and suicide was clearly affected by religious affiliation and education. In Australia, more doctors without formal religious affiliation were sympathetic to active voluntary euthanasia, and acknowledged that they had practised it, than were doctors who gave any religious affiliation. Of those identifying with a religion, those who reported a Protestant affiliation were intermediate in their attitudes and practices between the agnostic/atheist and the Catholic groups. Catholics recorded attitudes most opposed, but even so, 18 per cent of Catholic medical respondents who had been so requested, recorded that they had taken active steps to bring about the death of patients.