What you'll learn
This topic examines different perspectives on euthanasia, a controversial end-of-life issue that appears regularly in WJEC GCSE Religious Education exam papers. You need to understand religious teachings (particularly Christianity and Buddhism), non-religious ethical arguments, and be able to evaluate competing views on whether euthanasia should be permitted. Exam questions will test your ability to explain beliefs, apply religious teachings to scenarios, and construct balanced arguments.
Key terms and definitions
Euthanasia — the act of deliberately ending a person's life to relieve suffering, often called "mercy killing"
Voluntary euthanasia — when a person requests help to end their own life
Non-voluntary euthanasia — when a person is unable to make a decision (e.g. in a coma) and someone else decides on their behalf
Assisted suicide — when a person is given the means to end their own life but carries out the final act themselves
Sanctity of life — the belief that life is sacred or holy because it is created by God and therefore should not be deliberately ended
Quality of life — the belief that life should have certain standards or conditions to make it worth living
Palliative care — specialist medical care focused on pain relief and comfort for terminally ill patients rather than curing the illness
Hospice — a facility providing palliative care for people approaching the end of life
Core concepts
Types of euthanasia
Understanding the different categories helps you analyse specific scenarios in exam questions:
Active euthanasia involves taking deliberate action to end life, such as administering a lethal injection. This is illegal in the UK.
Passive euthanasia involves withdrawing or withholding treatment that is keeping someone alive, such as turning off life-support machines. In the UK, doctors can make "best interests" decisions to withdraw futile treatment.
Voluntary euthanasia occurs when someone with mental capacity requests assistance to die. Switzerland allows this through organisations like Dignitas.
Non-voluntary euthanasia happens when the patient cannot communicate their wishes (coma, severe dementia, infancy). The decision is made by relatives or medical professionals.
Involuntary euthanasia would mean ending someone's life against their wishes — this is simply murder and universally condemned.
Christian perspectives on euthanasia
Most Christian denominations oppose euthanasia, though with some nuanced positions:
Catholic teaching:
- Strongly opposes all forms of active euthanasia
- Based on the sanctity of life principle — life is a gift from God (Genesis 1:27 "God created mankind in his own image")
- The Fifth Commandment "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13) applies to taking any innocent life
- Suffering can have spiritual value and be united with Christ's suffering on the cross
- However, Catholics accept that refusing extraordinary or disproportionate treatment is morally acceptable
- The Catechism states: "Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome... is legitimate"
Protestant views:
- Generally opposed to active euthanasia but with some variation
- The Church of England recognises the "overwhelming compassion" some feel but maintains that intentionally ending life is wrong
- Emphasis on the commandment against killing and God's sovereignty over life and death
- Many Protestants support good palliative care as the Christian response to suffering
- Some liberal Protestants argue that Christian compassion and love could support voluntary euthanasia in extreme cases
Biblical teachings frequently cited:
- Job 1:21 — "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away"
- 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 — "Your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit... you are not your own"
- John 10:10 — Jesus came to give "life to the full" (interpreted as supporting quality of life)
Buddhist perspectives on euthanasia
Buddhism offers a different framework based on ethical principles rather than divine commands:
Key Buddhist concepts:
- The First Precept is to abstain from taking life, which Buddhists interpret as applying to all sentient beings including oneself
- Ahimsa (non-harming) is fundamental to Buddhist ethics
- Karmic consequences — intentionally ending life creates negative karma for both the person dying and those who assist
- The state of mind at death is considered important for rebirth, and choosing to die may not be the best mental state
Traditional Buddhist opposition:
- Most Buddhist traditions oppose euthanasia because it violates the First Precept
- Taking life interferes with the natural working out of karma
- Suffering at the end of life may be completing karmic debts from past actions
- The Dalai Lama has stated that euthanasia is generally wrong, though he acknowledges complex cases require careful consideration
Compassion-based arguments:
- Some Buddhists argue that compassion (karuna) is also a central value
- If someone is experiencing unbearable suffering with no hope of recovery, preventing greater suffering could be the compassionate choice
- The Middle Way suggests examining each case individually rather than absolute rules
- Intention (cetana) matters greatly in Buddhism — acting from genuine compassion creates different karma than acting from selfish motives
Non-religious ethical arguments FOR euthanasia
Autonomy and personal freedom:
- Individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own bodies and lives
- If someone is mentally competent, they should be able to choose a dignified death
- Preventing voluntary euthanasia removes a fundamental human freedom
Quality of life:
- When life involves only suffering, pain, and loss of dignity, it may no longer be worth living
- Modern medicine can keep bodies alive but cannot always preserve meaningful existence
- Compassion means not forcing people to endure unbearable conditions
Reduction of suffering:
- While palliative care is excellent, it cannot relieve all suffering (physical, psychological, existential)
- Allowing euthanasia prevents prolonged agony
- It is more humane to end suffering than to force people to experience it
Practical arguments:
- People already travel abroad to die (e.g. Switzerland) — legalisation would allow proper regulation and safeguards
- Some people take their own lives violently while still physically able, rather than waiting until they are too weak — earlier euthanasia access could prevent traumatic deaths
- Medical resources could be directed toward patients who want treatment
Non-religious ethical arguments AGAINST euthanasia
Sanctity of life (secular version):
- Human life has inherent value regardless of religious belief
- Society has a duty to protect life, especially for vulnerable people
- Legalising euthanasia devalues human life generally
Slippery slope:
- Beginning with voluntary euthanasia for terminally ill patients could lead to expansion
- The Netherlands and Belgium have gradually widened criteria to include mental illness and dementia
- Vulnerable people (elderly, disabled, depressed) could face pressure to choose death
- Economic pressures in healthcare systems could influence decisions
Medical ethics:
- Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm"
- The role of medicine is to heal and care, not to kill
- Legalising euthanasia fundamentally changes the doctor-patient relationship
- Risk of misdiagnosis — some "terminal" patients have survived longer than expected
Availability of palliative care:
- Modern hospice care can effectively manage pain and provide dignity
- Rather than offering death, society should invest in better end-of-life care
- Dame Cicely Saunders, founder of the modern hospice movement, argued that proper care removes the desire for euthanasia
Consent issues:
- True voluntary consent is difficult to ensure when someone is suffering, medicated, or depressed
- Non-voluntary euthanasia is especially problematic — who decides another person's "best interests"?
- Family members may have conflicts of interest (inheritance, burden of care)
UK legal position
Understanding current law helps you evaluate arguments:
- Active euthanasia is illegal in the UK and classified as murder or manslaughter
- Assisting suicide is illegal under the Suicide Act 1961 (up to 14 years imprisonment)
- However, prosecution is not automatic — the Director of Public Prosecutions considers factors like the person's motives
- Withdrawing treatment (passive euthanasia) is permitted when it is in the patient's best interests
- The Mental Capacity Act 2005 allows people to make advance decisions refusing treatment
- Several parliamentary attempts to legalise assisted dying have failed, most recently the Assisted Dying Bill debates
Exam-relevant case studies
Tony Nicklinson (2012):
- Suffered complete paralysis from locked-in syndrome after a stroke
- Campaigned for the right to legally end his life with medical assistance
- His case reached the High Court but was rejected
- Died of pneumonia after refusing food following the court decision
- Raises questions about quality of life versus sanctity of life
Diane Pretty (2002):
- Had motor neurone disease and wanted assurance her husband would not be prosecuted for helping her die
- Took her case to the European Court of Human Rights but lost
- Died in a hospice two weeks later
- Demonstrated both sides — her suffering and the legal protection of life
Worked examples
Question 1: "Explain Christian teachings about euthanasia." [5 marks]
Model answer:
Christians generally oppose euthanasia based on the belief in the sanctity of life — that life is sacred because it is created by God (1 mark). The Bible teaches that humans are made in God's image (Genesis 1:27), so deliberately ending life shows disrespect to God (1 mark). The Fifth Commandment "You shall not murder" is understood to forbid euthanasia (1 mark). Catholics teach that suffering can have spiritual value when united with Christ's suffering on the cross (1 mark). However, Christians support good palliative care and accept that refusing extraordinary treatment that only prolongs dying is morally acceptable (1 mark).
Why this scores full marks:
- Identifies key principle (sanctity of life)
- Uses specific Biblical reference accurately
- Shows denominational awareness (Catholic view)
- Demonstrates nuance (acceptance of withdrawing futile treatment)
- Clear explanations not just listed points
Question 2: "Euthanasia should be legalised." Discuss this statement showing that you have considered more than one point of view. (You must refer to religion and belief in your answer.) [15 marks]
Model answer structure:
Introduction: Briefly define euthanasia and state it is controversial.
Arguments in favour:
- Personal autonomy — people should control their own lives and deaths if mentally competent
- Quality of life argument — some suffering cannot be relieved and forcing people to endure it is cruel
- Some argue Christian teaching on compassion and love could support helping someone in unbearable pain
- Secular Humanists emphasise individual freedom and dignity in dying
Arguments against:
- Christians believe in sanctity of life — God gives life and only God should take it away (Genesis 1:27, Exodus 20:13)
- Buddhists uphold the First Precept against taking life and believe euthanasia creates negative karma
- Slippery slope concern — legalisation could lead to vulnerable people feeling pressured
- Better palliative care is the answer rather than offering death
Evaluation:
- Weight the strongest arguments on each side
- Consider whether religious principles or individual freedom should take priority
- Perhaps mention that safeguards could address some concerns
- Reach a reasoned conclusion (can be either position if justified)
Why this approach works:
- Shows range of perspectives (religious and non-religious)
- Applies religious teachings with explanation not just quotation
- Addresses the specific statement directly
- Evaluates rather than just describes
- Structured clearly with linked reasoning
Question 3: "Explain what religious believers mean by 'sanctity of life'." [2 marks]
Model answer:
Sanctity of life means that life is sacred or holy (1 mark) because it is created by God and therefore should be valued and protected (1 mark).
Why this scores full marks:
- Defines the term precisely
- Explains the religious reasoning behind it
- Concise and focused on the question
Common mistakes and how to avoid them
Mistake: Confusing euthanasia with murder or execution and treating them as identical. Correction: Euthanasia specifically involves ending life to relieve suffering, usually at the person's request. Always emphasise the motivation of ending suffering and the context of terminal illness or unbearable conditions.
Mistake: Only giving Biblical quotations without explaining what they mean or how they apply to euthanasia. Correction: Always explain the relevance. For example, don't just write "Exodus 20:13 says 'You shall not murder'" — add "which Christians interpret as forbidding euthanasia because intentionally ending life, even to relieve suffering, is seen as murder."
Mistake: Presenting all Christians or all Buddhists as having identical views without acknowledging any variation. Correction: Show awareness of nuance. Catholics have official teachings against euthanasia, but some liberal Protestants might disagree. Traditional Buddhists oppose it based on the First Precept, but some argue compassion could justify it in extreme cases.
Mistake: Describing the "slippery slope" argument without explaining what it actually means. Correction: Make clear that this argument warns that starting with limited euthanasia (voluntary, terminal illness) could gradually expand to broader categories (mental illness, dementia, disability) and create pressure on vulnerable people.
Mistake: Writing that "quality of life is more important than sanctity of life" or vice versa without justification. Correction: These are competing ethical principles. Explain that quality of life focuses on conditions that make life worth living, while sanctity of life emphasises the inherent value of life regardless of condition. Religious believers typically prioritise sanctity; non-religious people may prioritise quality.
Mistake: Ignoring non-religious perspectives entirely in evaluation questions. Correction: WJEC mark schemes reward considering both religious and non-religious views. Always include Humanist or other secular ethical arguments alongside religious teachings, especially in 15-mark evaluation questions.
Exam technique for Issues of Life and Death: euthanasia
Command word recognition:
- "Explain" questions (2, 5 marks) — give reasons and show understanding, not just describe. Link religious teachings to the specific issue.
- "Discuss" or evaluate statements (15 marks) — present multiple viewpoints with religious references, then weigh arguments and reach a justified conclusion. AO2 assessment focuses on analysis and evaluation.
Structure for 15-mark questions:
- Allocate roughly 15-20 minutes
- Write 3-4 paragraphs presenting different views (religious and non-religious)
- Include at least 2 religious perspectives with specific teachings or texts
- Add 1-2 paragraphs evaluating which arguments are stronger and why
- Conclude with your reasoned judgement
- Aim for extended writing showing developed reasoning, not a list of bullet points
Using religious teachings effectively:
- Name the religion/denomination and the specific teaching
- Quote or reference sacred texts where appropriate (but always explain relevance)
- Connect general principles (sanctity of life, compassion) to the specific euthanasia scenario
- Show how teachings lead to practical positions (e.g., "Therefore Catholics would oppose legalising euthanasia")
Demonstrating evaluation:
- Use evaluative language: "however," "on the other hand," "a stronger argument is," "this suggests"
- Compare strengths of different arguments: "While the autonomy argument is compelling, religious believers would counter that..."
- Consider objections to views you present: "Although sanctity of life is important, some argue that quality matters more when..."
- Avoid sitting on the fence — reach a conclusion but show you understand why others disagree
Quick revision summary
Euthanasia means deliberately ending life to relieve suffering. Voluntary euthanasia involves the person's request; non-voluntary occurs when they cannot decide. Christians generally oppose it based on sanctity of life — life is God's gift (Genesis 1:27, Exodus 20:13). Buddhists cite the First Precept against taking life and karmic consequences. Non-religious arguments for euthanasia include personal autonomy, quality of life, and compassion; arguments against include the slippery slope, medical ethics, and the availability of palliative care. Active euthanasia remains illegal in the UK. Exam questions test explanation of religious teachings and evaluation of competing arguments.