The article discusses the issue of Euthanasia from the perspective of an Orthodox theology of communion. It demonstrates, that issues related to Euthanasia including moral and ethical issues cannot be limited to the individual and his context, but are in fact issues that should and do incorporate the wider community. The emphasis of Orthodox Theology on Communion and on the community could present possibilities of how to deal with Euthanasia by transferring the debate from the context of the individual and his or her choice or choice of other immediate individuals to an ecclesially centred platform. Just as there is a tendency for greater individualisation in society there is a tendency to moral and ethical individualisation and atomisation.
Joseph Fletcher claims in his Christian situation ethic developed in the nineteen sixties that there is nothing wrong with the use of euthanasia on children born with Down’s syndrome. But is it possible to use his claim of non-persons as non-moral subjects in an ethic that claims not to be legalistic? This paper affirms that Fletcher’s claims are wrong, and that questions motivated by a lack of resources should be answered with a critical discussion regarding those resources. Not with an ethic that supports euthanasia.
A historical analysis of a certain idea is not only attempt to reconstruct past events as accurately as possible, but it also aims at better understanding of current intellectual trends. The idea of euthanasia is the best example here. Old justifications to allow to kill on request appear in today’s discussions almost literally. First of all it is compassion for the ill and suffering and necessity to alleviate their excruciating pain. This argument seems to be so clear and evident that the supporters of euthanasia quote it in the first place. Suggestive propaganda, particularly in films and documentaries, which show the demand for euthanasia as a sign of despair or even courage, is to break the instinctive resistance of the society. But when euthanasia is legalized (or acknowledged as not a punishable act), personal autonomy arguments are promoted. The pseudo-right to terminate one’s own life is popularized. This right encapsulates not only suicidal death by the ill person himself, but also patients’ demands for the possibility to be legally killed by doctors within the health care system. Stressing the issue of costs and eugenic aspects only reinforces the impression of a rational and human-friendly decision. The fact that this expanding pro-euthanasia mentality threatens the foundations of our civilization is marginalized and omitted. This mentality recognizes human life as valuable and worthy living only under certain conditions, namely when it has a good quality.