Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone, and I'm going to be your RE teacher today for this lesson on Christian responses to euthanasia, which forms part of a unit on Matters of life and death.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain Christian teachings on euthanasia and how these influence Christian responses.

Some keywords that we'll be using today are euthanasia, hospice, living will, and palliative care.

Euthanasia is intentionally ending a person's life to relieve suffering, either by causing death or allowing it to occur.

A hospice is a place where people with terminal illness receive palliative care.

A living will is a legal document that outlines a person's wishes for medical treatment if they cannot communicate, and palliative care is medical treatment that aims to relieve pain and improve quality of life.

Our lesson today will have two parts.

We'll be looking at Biblical teachings on euthanasia and at Christian views on euthanasia.

So let's get started looking at Biblical teachings on euthanasia.

Christians try to answer questions such as, can euthanasia ever be justified by consulting sources of authority? And these could include the Bible, church teachings, the advice of church leaders and of fellow Christians, Christian ethical theories, such as Natural Law and situation ethics, their conscience, and reason.

And it's important to remember that Christians may interpret the sources differently or emphasise one over another.

"So God created mankind in his own image," Genesis 1:27.

This teaching suggests that all human life has intrinsic value and is sacred, so that value is built into life.

It could be used and is usually used to suggest that euthanasia is wrong.

Life should be protected until natural death.

It's possible that someone could argue using this quotation that actually euthanasia could be accepted because preserving life at all costs doesn't necessarily honour its sacredness if that life is a life full of pain and of suffering.

"You shall not murder," Exodus 20:13.

So intentional killing is wrong.

Now, this could be used to argue that euthanasia is wrong because euthanasia is intentional killing and is, therefore, breaking one of The Ten Commandments.

On the other hand, it could be used to argue that euthanasia could be accepted because, for example, taking away a treatment is not intentionally ending a life.

So it could be used to support the idea that passive euthanasia, for example, is acceptable.

"Your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit," 1 Corinthians 6:19.

So this suggests that life is a gift from God and that humans are stewards of their bodies.

Euthanasia is wrong.

Harming the body is disrespecting the temple where God lives.

That would be one way to use this teaching.

But on the other hand, euthanasia could be accepted because you could argue that you are maintaining someone's dignity, and this is actually a way of respecting the body, that temple of the Holy Spirit.

So let's check your understanding so far of Biblical teachings on euthanasia.

Part of this question has been completed for you.

Outline three Biblical teachings which could be used to suggest euthanasia is morally unacceptable.

So we have Genesis 1:27 which says, "Mankind is created in the image of God," meaning life has intrinsic value.

And we have Paul describing the body as a "temple" of the Holy Spirit, suggesting it is holy and sacred.

So take your time to think about a third example of a Biblical teaching which could be used to argue against euthanasia.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So you could have said one of The Ten Commandments, which is an Exodus, "You shall not murder." Well done if you got that right.

"Love your neighbour as yourself," Matthew 22:39.

So loving one's neighbour means showing compassion.

Now, it could be used to argue that euthanasia is wrong because if you're deciding someone's life is not worth living, that's not very compassionate or loving.

But it's usually used when Christians want to support euthanasia, and that's because you could argue that ending suffering is an act of love.

One of the other factors that affects Christian views on euthanasia is their personal opinion on the value of suffering.

Here's an image which is from an engraving by Gustavo Dore, and it's an illustration from the story of Job, which is a book found in the Bible.

If we zoom in on the illustration, we can see a closeup of Job looking extremely distressed.

Now, this is because the story of Job is all about God allowing Satan to test Job's faith.

Job is a very prosperous man, very wealthy, doing very well, and has a good relationship with God.

And Satan asked God if he can test his faith.

Is Job just faithful because things are going well for him? So this is the scene taken from the story where Job hears about the loss of virtually everything he has, his livestock, his servants, and his children.

Job's wife comes to him, and she suggests that he curses God because God has taken this away from him or allowed this to happen to him.

But Job refuses to do so.

And when his wife tells him to, he replies, "Shall we accept good from God and not trouble?" So Job's approach is to endure his suffering and to accept that it happens and that maybe God can only explain its purpose.

He won't understand it himself.

So Job accepts God's wisdom, and his fortunes are restored.

So this story is quite important for Christians when thinking about the value of suffering.

James and Fergus are discussing how it influences their thinking on euthanasia.

James says, "As a Catholic, I believe Job's story shows us how although we may not understand it, suffering has a purpose.

It can bring us closer to Christ, who also suffered for us.

One reason why euthanasia is wrong is that it denies the value of suffering." So I'd like you to take a moment to think about what James has said.

Can you think of any examples where suffering might have some kind of value? Turn and talk to somebody nearby if you can, or you can pause and talk to me.

Come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's have a look at what Fergus has to say about this.

Fergus says, "As an Anglican, I agree that suffering can have a purpose, but that doesn't mean it's always valuable.

Jesus healed the sick rather than telling them to endure it.

And when it comes to euthanasia, I believe relieving unbearable suffering can be the more compassionate choice." So what's the key difference between James' and Fergus' views on the value of suffering? Take a moment, turn and talk to somebody nearby, and come back when you're ready to rejoin the lesson.

So let's check your understanding on this story of Job.

How does the story influence Christian views on the value of suffering? I'd like you to choose two answers.

So we have a, it teaches that suffering has a purpose, b, it suggests that God wants people to end their suffering, c, it suggests that suffering is difficult but can be endured with faith, and d, it shows that suffering should be avoided.

So think back over the story.

Take your time, pause the video, and come back when you're ready to check your answer.

Well done if you put a, it teaches that suffering has a purpose, and c, that suffering is difficult, but it can be endured if you have faith.

So for task A on Biblical teachings on euthanasia, I would like you to link each quotation to a viewpoint and then explain how it supports a viewpoint.

So this is a really useful scale at GCSE because you are often asked to refer to a source of authority and to link it in with a viewpoint or belief or response.

So the viewpoints are, life is sacred, Jesus commands us to show compassion, and suffering has value.

And the quotations are, "So God created mankind in his own image," "Love your neighbour as yourself," "Shall we accept good from God and not trouble?" So remember, you're not just linking the two things together, but you also need to explain that connection between the viewpoint and the quotation.

So take your time, pause the video, and come back when you're ready to look at what you could have written.

So you could have said, Life is sacred, "So God created mankind in his own image." This suggests that human life has intrinsic value as it reflects God's image and so should be protected.

Jesus' command showing compassion, "Love your neighbour as yourself." This indicates that Christians should act with kindness and could justify relieving someone's suffering.

Suffering has value, "Shall we accept good from God and not trouble?" This teaches that suffering is part of life and can have a purpose, such as bringing people closer to God.

So well done if you connected the viewpoint with the teaching, and even better if you managed to explain that link.

Let's move on to the second part of our lesson, Christian views on euthanasia.

In 1992, Dr.

Cox gave a lethal injection to a termly ill patient in severe pain.

He was found guilty of attempted murder, but received a suspended sentence.

We've got a scale here going from Disagree right through to Agree.

Now the Catholic Church teaching and their response at the time was very much to disagree with this.

That's because the Catholic Church teaches that intentionally ending a life violates the sanctity of life.

True compassion means caring for the dying, not hastening death, and that could be found in "Evangelium Vitae." The Anglican Church response was also that ending a life is wrong because life is sacred, and again, they're supporting compassionate end-of-life care instead, and that's from the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

The Pentecostal teaching said that deliberately ending a life goes against God's authority over life and death.

True faith means trusting in God's healing power, and that's found in the Assemblies of God paper, "Suicide, Assisted Suicide, and Euthanasia," from 1996.

So we can see here that our different churches are all very much disagreeing with Dr.

Cox and this situation, which is an example of active voluntary euthanasia.

Born with a severe brain abnormality in 2004, Baby C couldn't breathe unaided and had no chance of recovery.

Her parents agreed with doctors to withdraw ventilation, allowing her to die peacefully and avoid suffering.

Let's look at our scale of views again and see where the different denominations fall.

Over on the agreed side, ow we have the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church allows withdrawing treatment if it only prolongs suffering without hope of recovery, as this is letting death occur naturally rather than actively trying to end life.

The Church of England similarly agreed with this scenario, teaching that life is sacred, but maintaining dignity and quality of life is important.

So withdrawing life support is acceptable, especially if it only prolongs suffering.

And again, the Pentecostal Church agreed here.

Pentecostal teaching says that life should be preserved wherever possible.

However, stopping treatment that only delays dying is acceptable.

So let's check your understanding.

Is this true or false? Most Christians are likely to accept the withdrawal of treatment that prolongs a life of intolerable suffering for someone who is terminally ill.

Think about your answer and I'd also like you to think about why you have decided it's either true or false.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put that this is true.

Withdrawing treatment in cases of terminal illness can prevent prolonged suffering, and it allows for a natural death.

And Christians are happy with that because, essentially, it is allowing nature to take its course, and it's also a compassionate thing to do.

Here we can see a photograph of Dame Cicely Saunders, who's the founder of the hospice movement.

A hospice is a place where people with terminal illnesses receive palliative care, focused on easing their pain and providing support, both emotionally and spiritually, at the end of their life.

The movement began in 1967 when Dame Cicely Saunders' Christian faith inspired her to open St.

Christopher's Hospice.

Since then, the hospice movement has grown worldwide, and it offers care to people of all faith or of none.

So let's check your understanding on a hospice.

What is the primary purpose of a hospice? Is it a, to administer euthanasia, b, to provide palliative care and comfort, c, to perform lifesaving surgeries, or d, to cure terminal illnesses? So take a moment to decide on the correct answer.

Pause the video.

Come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put b.

The primary purpose is to provide palliative care and comfort.

So that's about physical pain relief, but it's also about emotional, mental, and even spiritual support.

Here's a picture of someone preparing to sign a legal document, which confirms their refusal of treatment.

Now, this is known as a living will.

So it's a document which outlines someone's wishes for medical treatment if they ever end up in a situation where they're unable to communicate what they want.

So it would usually specify whether or not to continue with life-sustaining treatments in certain situations.

Living wills are considered very useful because they ensure that the person's wishes are respected, and they're giving guidance to the family and healthcare professionals.

And it might be a very difficult decision for a family member to take that someone's life support should be withdrawn.

If they know that's what the person would've wanted, that would help them make that choice.

So what is the name for a legal document where a person outlines their wishes for medical treatment, including decisions about life-sustaining treatments? Take a moment, have a think, pause, write down your answer, and then come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you wrote a living will.

So let's summarise Christian views on euthanasia.

So most agree that actively ending a life is wrong, and that hospices are a good alternative because they offer this palliative care that focuses on the whole person, managing their death with dignity, giving them emotional support, and dealing, hopefully, with their pain.

They also generally agree that withdrawing treatment which prolongs a life is acceptable, and that living wills can be really helpful in supporting family members to know when to do this.

So that's what most Christians think.

There are some Christians, however, that would say that actively ending a life can be right as it's the most loving response.

So that's a possible view that some might have.

So on the whole, they're against active euthanasia, and they find passive acceptable, but there are going to be some who accept active euthanasia as well.

David and Fergus are both Anglicans.

David is a doctor, and he belongs to the Christian Medical Fellowship, an organisation which opposes euthanasia.

Fergus is a liberal Anglican.

David says, "I believe life is sacred and that euthanasia is not the answer to suffering.

Instead, palliative care in hospices provides compassionate support and dignity without ending life prematurely." Fergus responds, "I agree life is sacred and that hospices are important in providing comfort for those who are suffering.

However, following situation ethics, I think there are times when the most loving and merciful choice might be euthanasia." So here we have Fergus as an example of a Christian who might go against that general view that euthanasia is wrong.

David says, "When it comes to passive euthanasia, I don't think we should prolong someone's life by providing medical treatment if they're in unbearable suffering.

That's where a living will comes in.

It lets people state their wishes when they are no longer able to communicate." Fergus says, "I agree, passive euthanasia is acceptable, and I think living wills help doctors and family members make difficult decisions, ensuring that someone's dignity and autonomy is respected." So what do David and Fergus disagree on and why? What do they agree on and why? Take a moment, turn and talk to somebody nearby.

Remember that David and Fergus are actually both Anglicans, so they both belong to the same religion and the same denomination, and yet they have different views.

Pause the video whilst you discuss the reasons why, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

So let's practise your understanding for Christian views on euthanasia.

So for Part 1, Lucas is answering this question on euthanasia using Christianity.

However, he's forgotten to refer to a source of authority in his answer.

Here's the question.

Explain two Christian beliefs about euthanasia.

In your answer, you must refer to a source of wisdom or authority.

You're going to be reading what he's written, and for one of his paragraphs, name a source of authority, say what it teaches, and apply it to euthanasia.

So let's have a look at what he's written.

You will be completing one row of this table by linking what he said to a source of authority, saying what it teaches, and applying it to euthanasia.

So his first point is, "For many Christians, active euthanasia is wrong because life is sacred and has intrinsic value." And his second, "Some Christians accept passive euthanasia because prolonging suffering by continuing treatment is not compassionate." So choose which of the points you wish to develop by linking it to a source of authority.

Pause the video, take the time to do that, and then come back when you're ready to check your answer.

So you could have said for Part 1 either that the Bible tells us "God has created mankind in his own image," linking with the idea that euthanasia is wrong because life is sacred, and then applying it to euthanasia, this shows Christians believe all human life is valuable and should be protected as it is a reflection of God.

For the second half of his answer, you might have decided to link the teaching of Jesus to "Love your neighbour." And to say, here, this shows Christians should act with kindness, which some believe includes allowing a natural death when treatment leads to more suffering.

You could even have linked this in with the idea that some would even go so far as to accepting active euthanasia.

So well done if you managed to name your source of authority.

It doesn't have to be exact, but you do have to show that you have understanding of where these ideas come from and if you've said what it teaches.

and again, you don't have to quote exactly, you can paraphrase in your own words, but of course, it does have to link in with the name source.

And even better if you have linked in with the question, applying it to euthanasia.

For Part 2 of our task on Christian views on euthanasia, here are three arguments that Christians might make in a debate about the statement, "Euthanasia can never be justified." I would like you to explain how someone who disagreed with them might respond.

This is a really useful evaluation skill for GCSE because it's important to show that you have reached a justified conclusion, and you can only do that when you show that you've seen both sides of an argument and usually, when you've made some connections between them.

So kind of weighing them against each other is really, really useful for those top marks.

So here's the argument.

Most Christians believe that euthanasia is wrong because life is sacred, and you're going to look at a response, "Some people would say that one problem with this argument is." The second argument, another reason Christians tend to believe euthanasia is wrong is that value can come from suffering.

And for the response, "Some people would challenge this argument by saying," and finally, other Christians, such as liberal Anglicans, might accept euthanasia in some circumstances as the most loving choice.

"Some people would say that one difficulty with this argument is." So in the responses or replies, have a think carefully about why some Christians might themselves disagree with other Christians, and you can also think about non-religious ideas as well if you'd like to.

Take your time, pause the video, and come back when you're ready to check your work.

You could have said for the first response, "Some people would say that one problem with this argument is it doesn't consider the quality of life.

Ending suffering is more important than preserving life at all costs." The second, "Some people would challenge this argument by saying that not all suffering has a purpose.

If someone is in extreme pain with no hope of improvement, prolonging their suffering is cruel rather than meaningful." And for the final point, "Some people would say that one difficulty with this argument is that deciding when euthanasia is justified can be complicated and could lead to people feeling pressured to die." So there are lots of things you could have said in response, but the key thing is to make sure that it's a direct reply.

Imagine two people debating this.

What might someone say back to the other? Well done if you have managed to think about how someone would respond.

In our lesson today, we have learned that the Bible teaches that life is sacred and that Christians should show love to other people, that some Christians believe that enduring suffering can bring people closer to God, that most Christians, including the Catholic, Anglican, and Pentecostal Churches, agree that intentionally ending a life violates the sanctity of life, but allow withdrawing treatment if it only prolongs suffering, that some Christians, such as liberal Anglicans, may use situation ethics to argue that active euthanasia can be acceptable, that hospices provide palliative care, allowing patients to die with dignity, and that a living will is a legal document outlining someone's wishes for medical treatment.

Well done your hard work today, and thank you for working with me on this lesson on euthanasia.