Religions and euthanasia: positions and controversies
Introduction
The question of euthanasia raises passionate debates that extend far beyond the medical or legal framework. At the heart of these controversies lie profound religious convictions about the value of human life, the right to die and the limits of individual autonomy.
The major spiritual traditions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, offer varied responses to this question of end-of-life ethics. Some religions consider all forms of euthanasia as a fundamental transgression, whilst others acknowledge nuances depending on circumstances. These religious positions influence not only individual choices, but also national legislation and medical practices.
In a country like Switzerland, where assisted suicide has been legal since 1942, understanding these different religious perspectives becomes essential. Whether you are a believer, close to someone facing these choices, or simply interested in the spiritual dimensions of death, this article explores the theological, philosophical and ethical arguments that structure the debate on euthanasia and religion.
📌 Summary (TL;DR)
The world's major religions adopt contrasting positions on euthanasia. Catholicism and Islam firmly oppose it in the name of the sanctity of life, whilst Judaism favours the preservation of life whilst acknowledging certain nuances. Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism emphasise compassion and karma, without a uniform position. These theological divergences profoundly influence funeral practices and end-of-life support.
📚 Table of contents
The ethical and religious framework of the euthanasia debate
Euthanasia refers to the act of voluntarily ending a person's life to shorten their suffering. A distinction is made between active euthanasia (administration of a lethal substance) and passive euthanasia (cessation of treatment). Assisted suicide, legal in Switzerland, constitutes a special case where the person performs the final act themselves.
Religions are concerned with this question because it touches on fundamental principles: the sanctity of life, God's role in human destiny, and the limits of individual autonomy. These spiritual convictions profoundly influence contemporary ethical debates.
To understand the Swiss legal context, consult our article on euthanasia in Switzerland.
Christianity and euthanasia
Christian denominations share a common vision of life as a sacred gift, but their positions on euthanasia vary according to theological traditions and interpretation of the Scriptures.
Catholicism, Protestantism and Orthodoxy agree on the principle of respect for life, but diverge on practical nuances and borderline situations. These differences reflect distinct approaches to doctrinal authority and individual conscience.
The Catholic position: sanctity of life
The Catholic Church firmly opposes active euthanasia. The Magisterium teaches that life is a gift from God and that only the Creator can decide the moment of death. This position is based on the fifth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill".
The Catechism clearly distinguishes between aggressive treatment, which may be refused, and euthanasia, which remains condemned. Refusing disproportionate treatment does not constitute suicide but an acceptance of the mortal condition.
The Vatican insists on palliative care and the dignity of the dying person, without ever intentionally causing death.
Protestant and Orthodox positions
Protestantism presents a diversity of positions depending on the denomination. Lutherans and Reformed Christians often favour individual conscience, some accepting the cessation of treatment in extreme situations. Evangelicals generally remain more conservative.
This diversity is explained by the absence of a central doctrinal authority and the importance given to personal interpretation of the Scriptures.
Orthodoxy largely aligns with Catholicism: opposition to active euthanasia, respect for life as a divine gift. Nuances exist according to local patriarchates and national cultural contexts.
Internal debates and contemporary developments
Dissenting voices are emerging within Christianity. Some progressive theologians question traditional doctrine in the name of compassion and human dignity. They emphasise that artificially prolonging suffering may contradict love of one's neighbour.
Secularisation influences the positions of believers. Many practising Christians, confronted with concrete end-of-life situations, adopt more nuanced positions than their religious institution.
These tensions reveal a growing gap between official doctrine and individual practices in Western societies.
Islam and end of life
The Islamic position on euthanasia is based on scriptural sources (Quran and Hadith) and their interpretation by scholars. Islam considers life as a sacred trust entrusted by Allah, which profoundly influences Muslim medical ethics.
Muslim jurists analyse this question through the principles of sharia, seeking a balance between preservation of life and avoidance of unnecessary suffering.
Quranic principles on life and death
The Quran explicitly forbids suicide and murder. "Do not kill yourselves" (Surah 4, verse 29) constitutes a clear foundation. Life belongs to Allah, who alone determines the moment of death for each being.
The concept of amanah (sacred trust) defines life as a responsibility temporarily entrusted to the human being. They must preserve and respect it, without being able to dispose of it at will.
These principles apply to both suicide and euthanasia, considered as serious transgressions.
Islamic jurisprudence and palliative care
The consensus of scholars (ijma) rejects active euthanasia. No major legal school authorises it. This unanimity crosses Sunni and Shia currents, despite their differences on other questions.
On the other hand, the cessation of aggressive treatment is accepted by many jurists. When treatments only artificially prolong agony without hope of recovery, their interruption does not constitute murder.
Palliative care is strongly encouraged. Islam values accompanying the dying person, pain relief and the presence of loved ones. Intention remains decisive: relieving is not killing.
Judaism and the infinite value of life
Judaism approaches euthanasia through Halakha (Jewish law) and Talmudic teachings. The rabbinical tradition accords infinite value to every moment of human life, which structures the Jewish approach to end of life.
This perspective profoundly influences Jewish medical ethics and the concrete decisions made by observant families facing end-of-life situations.
Pikouah nefesh: the principle of preservation of life
The concept of pikouah nefesh (preservation of life) constitutes a pillar of Judaism. Saving a life takes precedence over almost all other religious laws, including Shabbat. This absolute priority reflects the sacred value of existence.
The Talmud teaches that every moment of life possesses infinite value. Even a few additional minutes have spiritual and ethical importance. This vision is radically opposed to any form of active euthanasia.
Talmudic references insist: one can never shorten a life, even to relieve suffering.
Rabbinical nuances and borderline cases
The rabbinical tradition distinguishes between prolonging life and prolonging death. The concept of goses (dying person) introduces nuances. For a goses, some rabbis authorise the removal of artificial obstacles that delay natural death.
Rabbinical debates on cessation of treatment reveal a sophisticated casuistic approach. Each situation is examined individually, taking into account medical and spiritual circumstances.
Orthodox movements remain strictly opposed to euthanasia. Conservative and Reform movements sometimes adopt more flexible positions, placing greater value on individual autonomy whilst maintaining respect for life.
Eastern religions: Buddhism and Hinduism
Asian traditions approach euthanasia through concepts distinct from Abrahamic religions. Karma, reincarnation and compassion structure a different approach to end of life.
These perspectives influence medical practices in countries with Buddhist or Hindu majorities, creating specific ethical frameworks that deserve to be understood in their cultural context.
Buddhism: compassion and non-violence
The first Buddhist precept forbids killing any living being. This principle of non-violence (ahimsa) also applies to oneself. Yet compassion (karuna) occupies a central place in Buddhist ethics.
This tension creates debates: can euthanasia be an act of compassion to shorten unbearable suffering? Or does it violate dharma by interrupting the natural process of death?
Responses vary according to schools. Theravada generally remains strict, whilst some Mahayana and Zen currents adopt more nuanced positions, favouring compassionate intention.
Hinduism: karma and dharma
Hinduism values ahimsa (non-violence) as a fundamental principle. Euthanasia raises karmic questions: prematurely interrupting life can affect karma and disrupt the cycle of reincarnation.
The Hindu tradition insists on the importance of dying in full consciousness, spiritually prepared. An artificially provoked death could compromise this essential transition to the next existence.
Sacred texts and local traditions offer varied perspectives. Some accept cessation of treatment, others firmly oppose it. This diversity reflects the philosophical richness of Hinduism.
Common philosophical and theological arguments
Beyond differences, several arguments cross religious traditions. The sanctity of life, the refusal to play God, and the distinction between killing and letting die constitute points of convergence.
Religions generally agree on the rejection of aggressive treatment and the importance of palliative care. Suffering must be relieved, but without intentionally causing death.
Divergences mainly concern individual autonomy and the role of personal conscience in relation to doctrinal prescriptions. This tension reflects different visions of human freedom.
To explore these questions further, discover the perception of death in religions.
The impact on funeral practices and support
Religious positions on euthanasia directly influence funeral rituals. Some traditions may refuse complete ceremonies for people who have chosen euthanasia, considered as suicide.
Support for the dying varies according to beliefs. Religious families often favour spiritual presence, prayers and sacraments rather than shortening life.
These differences sometimes create tensions when a family member chooses euthanasia against the advice of their religious community. The grief of loved ones can be complicated by feelings of guilt or institutional rejection.
Wolky respects all beliefs and supports families in creating dignified memorial pages, whatever the end-of-life choice.
Religious positions on euthanasia reflect profound values about the sanctity of life, human autonomy and compassion. From Christianity to Islam, from Judaism to Eastern traditions, each religion brings its own reading of this complex ethical question. Whilst the principle of preservation of life remains central in most traditions, the nuances and internal debates testify to a constantly evolving reflection in the face of contemporary medical realities.
These religious convictions directly influence end-of-life choices, support for the dying and the funeral practices that follow a death. Understanding these different perspectives enables families to better support their loved ones with respect for their beliefs and values.
When the time comes to honour the memory of a loved one, Wolky supports you with dignity and simplicity. Publish an obituary in a few minutes for 180 CHF and create a space for remembrance accessible to all, 24 hours a day.
