Different Religious Views On Death

Christianity

The three major monotheistic religions of the world – Christianity,Islam, and Judaism – all have definite theology related to issues of death and dying. Christianity is the largest of these and, in fact, the largest religion in the world. Although Christians may be divided in many ways over issues of theology, they do hold the same core values and beliefs. One of these is that there is an afterlife in which believers will spend eternity with God. Although there may be dissention over smaller matters, in issues of life and death, there tends to be more common ground. Sickness, suffering, and death are viewed by many Christians through their understanding of Christ’s suffering and death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection. Christians also believe that God participates in the affairs of humanity, another tenet that inform their views of death and dying. The New Testament teaches that one’s body is the temple of God, so most Christians believe that life is sacred, although not necessarily to be preserved at all costs. For example, in questions of withholding or with drawing treatment, the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that there is a distinction between ordinary measures (i.e. those medical treatments that are intended to preserve life such as medicines, treatments, and operations that offer reasonable hope for preserving life and that can be obtained without excessive expense, pain, or other inconvenience) and extraordinary measures (i.e., medicines, treatments, and operations that do not offer reasonable hope of preserving life and which cannot be obtained without excessive expense, pain, or other inconvenience). There is, of course, no list of procedures that easily fall into one category or another; all such treatment needs to be made with informed consent on an individual basis by the patient or family. For example, a feeding tube or mechanical ventilation at one stage during the course of a disease or illness may provide sufficient time for other measures to take affect and enable the patient to life; given at another time, however, it may only preserve existence with no hope of recovery.

Islam

The second largest (and youngest) major monotheistic religion is Islam. Although Islam has legal rulings or fatawa (sg., fatwa) about life and death issues such as organ donation and euthanasia,there is not widespread agreement about these issues between Muslim jurists from different schools of Islamic law (Sachedina, 2005). In general, however, Islam teaches that death comes to us all and that how we die is of importance. According to Muslims, God is both the origin and destiny of life so that life is therefore sacred. According to the Qur’an, death does not occur except by God’s permission. Therefore, in Islam, it is necessary to do everything possible to prevent a premature death. The question of preserving life at any cost, however, is the subject of much debate within Islam. Although on the one hand there is the obligation to save or even prolong life, on the other hand there is the argument that one should limit life sustaining treatment if there is a lack of resources. Further, in Islam, the decision of life-prolonging treatment is not the decision of the individual alone. Islam emphasizes the link between the welfare of the individual and his/her family and community. Decisions about whether or not an aggressive or invasive treatment can prolong life without causing further harm, therefore, is a matter of concern not only for the individual but for all associated with him/her. Regarding pain, the approach of most Muslims is to act in such a way as to alleviate pain through actively removing its cause. As in Christianity, the human body is seen as a temple of God. Therefore, Islamic law does not recognize a patient’s right to die voluntarily (e.g., suicide, assisted suicide, or other types of active human intervention). There are, however, exceptions to this general principle depending on the circumstances: Specifically, the administration of medication to relieve physical and mental suffering in a terminal patient that has the side effect of shortening life or the withdrawal of futile treatment after informed consent (Sachedina, 2005).

Judaism

The smallest, albeit the oldest, of the major monotheistic religions is Judaism. As with Christianity and Islam, the Jewish religion holds that the body belongs to God. This means that human beings have the obligation to seek both preventative and curative medical treatment. However, as also with the other two religions, Judaism recognizes the fact that all human beings are mortal. Similarly, there is not widespread agreement across all Jewish traditions about how this is to be interpreted. In addition,
culture (in the form of country, generation, or family) may also affect the interpretation of these matters. Because the individual belongs to God, Judaism does not condone suicide or the enlistment of aid to end one’s life. Judaism has its own criteria for determining death. Traditionally, these have been the cessation of breathing and heartbeat (although sufficient time must be allowed before burial to determine that this is a permanent condition). After the development of the Harvard criteria for brain death, Conservative rabbis accepted these criteria as fulfilling the traditional requirements. Criteria for the acceptability of withholding life-sustaining treatment varies, with the strictest interpretation being the prognosis that the patient will die within 72 hours or less and more liberal interpretations allowing for withholding life-sustaining measures if the patient will live up to a year or more. However, most rabbis view artificial nutrition and hydration to be the equivalent of food and liquids required by everyone to live, and require them to be used even when other life-sustaining treatments are withdrawn. Regarding heroic measures, most view these as permissible as long as there is some hope of a cure; however, such measures are not required and the decision is to be made based on the risk/benefit ratio, the patient’s best interests, and the patient’s desires. Jews are allowed to sign advance directives for health care to specify their wishes in such cases should they not be able to communicate their desires at the time. Pain control, palliative care, and hospice programs in which the goal is to make the patient comfortable but not to cure are all acceptable under Jewish tenets.
Further, Jewish tradition holds it to be an obligation to visit the sick, treat them with respect, and pray for them. Ethical considerations continue even after death. Regarding autopsy and organ donation, the ruling principles are that the dead body should be honored as the property of God and that one has an obligation to save the lives of others. Because of the first principle, autopsies are not routinely performed unless required by civil law, three doctors agree that the cause of death cannot be otherwise ascertained, that the autopsy might helps save the lives of others with similar illnesses or that the results of the autopsy might be of benefit to surviving family members with a hereditary disease.
These criteria, however, are debated. Although the donation of cadavers to science or of organs to save others is permitted by most rabbis, there is also disagreement about the circumstances under which these actions are permissible.

Hinduism

Not every religion is monotheistic, however. In fact, the second largest religion of the world is Hinduism. Although this religion does not have an institutional framework or demand adherence to particular doctrines, most Hindus do hold certain tenets in common that apply to death and dying. Most Hindus believe that a living being (either human or animal) possesses a soul that moves on from one life to the next. In addition, most Hindus hold that there is a difference between a good death and a bad death. The former occurs in old age either on the banks of the sacred Ganges River or on the ground at home. (For this purpose, many Hindus keep a container of Ganges water to be offered to the dying person and placed on the lips of the corpse.) Hindus prepare all their lives for a good death and enter into it consciously and willingly. A good death requires the correct rituals in order to speed the soul on its way. Bad deaths, on the other hand, are premature, violent, or uncontrolled, happening at the wrong place and time (often signified by vomit, feces, urine, and an unpleasant expression). The worst type of death in Hinduism is suicide that happens for selfish reasons. There is a long tradition of voluntary death in Hinduism, typically where such an action is linked to a specific purpose such as gaining freedom. However, Hinduism makes a distinction between the willed death of an individual. Suicide for selfish reasons is considered to be morally wrong and cannot be sanctioned with the appropriate rites of death. Some Hindu authorities also argue that human beings should not take their own lives because of the karmic effect on the next life. In general, Hinduism stands strongly against involuntary euthanasia primarily because it goes against the principle of autonomy and can be easily abused. However, in all these matters, it is difficult to generalize the Hindu attitudes toward death and dying because they are highly correlated with education, class, and tradition.

Buddhism

Another major polytheistic religion (one, in fact, with more adherents than Judaism) is Buddhism. In this religion, the inevitability of death is recognized and emphasis is placed on the psychological preparation necessary to accept death with calmness and dignity. Buddhists place great value on mindfulness and mental clarity because they believe that it can affect the quality of their rebirth. This fact impacts their philosophy of dying. For example, some Buddhists may forego pain relieving drugs or sedatives sothat their mental facilities can be unimpaired. The Buddhist definition of death involves the loss of three criteria: vitality, heat, and sentiency. Although determining the loss of heat is a rather straightforward matter, determining the loss of the other two criteria is not, particularly given the tradition of yogic trance in which life signs may not be observable. On the other hand, there is no disagreement between Buddhist tradition and modern medicine on the status of patients in a persistent vegetative state: Individuals in this state are clearly alive according to both views. From the Buddhist perspective, irreversible damage to the neocortex is no different than damage to another organ when making ethical decisions regarding treatment. This typically means that unless there are secondary complications, the person should continue to be given nutrition and hydration. Further, Buddhists do not believe in taking a life. Therefore, they do not condone suicide or the incitement of someone to commit suicide. This prohibition also extends to assisted suicide and euthanasia, even though these actions might spare the person unnecessary pain. On the other hand, due to the Buddhist belief in the inevitability of death, Buddhists do not condone attempts to prolong life beyond its natural span through technology, but encourage adherents to prepare to accept death calmly when it comes. This, however, does not preclude hospice or other palliative care.