Hello, my name's Mrs. Rawbone and I'd like to welcome you to this RE lesson today on contrasting views on euthanasia.

Our outcome for today is that you will be able to explain Christian teachings on euthanasia and how they influence Christian responses.

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 illnesses 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 take three parts.

We'll be looking at issues surrounding euthanasia, at Christian teachings on euthanasia, and at arguments about euthanasia.

So let's get started on issues surrounding euthanasia.

The word euthanasia comes from ancient Greek.

It has two parts, "eu" from the Greek word meaning "well" or "good".

And "thanatos" from the Greek word meaning "death." So literally speaking, euthanasia translates as "good death" or "dying well".

But it refers to this intentional ending of a person's life to relieve their suffering, and it's usually either by causing death or allowing death to happen.

So euthanasia, which is deliberately ending a life to relieve suffering, can be one of two main types.

Voluntary, which is where a person consents to their life being ended so they choose it for themselves.

Or non-voluntary, which is where they are unable to consent.

So they cannot choose and someone else makes a decision on their behalf.

So we also have two other aspects of euthanasia.

It is either active, when deliberate steps are taken to end a person's life.

Or passive, which is when a life sustaining treatment is withdrawn or withheld.

Assisted suicide is slightly different from euthanasia.

This is when someone provides the means for someone else to end their own life.

So this again, will be due to terminal illness or great suffering.

So euthanasia is ending someone else's life, and assisted suicide is supporting or enabling someone to end their own life.

So let's check your understanding.

Someone who's suffering with a terminal illness asks a doctor to administer a lethal injection to end their suffering.

Which two types of euthanasia are described in this scenario? A, voluntary euthanasia? B, non-voluntary euthanasia? C, passive euthanasia? And D, active euthanasia? Now remember, you're choosing two types because it falls into two of those categories.

So take a moment, pause if you need to and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you noticed it was voluntary, that's because the person requested it themselves.

And if it's active, which is because it's an injection to end someone's life deliberately rather than taking away a treatment.

So the law on euthanasia is quite varied around the world.

We have some countries that are more permissive, others that have mixed laws and some that are more restrictive.

The Netherlands, for example, is a country that has more permissive laws.

Euthanasia is actually legal there for adults and for minors though there are restrictions.

So the person must be experiencing unbearable suffering with no hope of recovery, and the procedure must be performed by a doctor after careful review.

In Switzerland, assisted suicide is legal, but active euthanasia is not.

So someone who also isn't a doctor, non-physicians can assist in this suicide as long as they do not have selfish motives.

In Ireland, euthanasia and assisted suicide are both illegal.

Assisted suicide is considered to be manslaughter and euthanasia is treated as murder.

So let's look at the UK.

In the UK, active euthanasia is illegal under the Suicide Act of 1961, and it's treated as either murder or manslaughter, which potentially carries a life sentence.

Under the same act, assisted suicide is punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

However, it is legal for doctors to withdraw or withhold life sustaining treatment if it's deemed in the patient's best interest.

So have a think about that scale of permissive to more restrictive.

Where would you put UK law on that continuum? If you're able to turn and talk to someone nearby, you can talk to me as well, then please do.

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

Let's check your understanding.

Give one country where assisted suicide is legal.

So take a moment, pause if you need to and come back to check your answer.

So you might have said either the Netherlands or Switzerlands, which were two of the examples that we looked at earlier.

Well done if you've got either of those two examples.

There are many things to consider when thinking about someone's views on assisted dying.

These include questions about whether life is always valuable regardless of the suffering that someone might be experiencing, whether people should have the right to choose to end their own lives, whether anyone else has the right to choose to end someone's life, and whether if someone wishes to end their life, it's right for them to ask someone else to help them to do it.

We could also ask, should euthanasia or assisted suicide be legal for those who are terminally ill.

So should we actually allow it? And finally, how can we protect vulnerable people who might feel pressure to go for euthanasia or assisted suicide? So for our first task on issues surrounding euthanasia, you're going to be completing the table to show your understanding of the differences between euthanasia and assisted suicide.

So we have, in the left hand column, some scenarios and I've provided you with one.

A doctor provides a terminally ill patient with medication to end their life.

The second column is for you to decide whether this is assisted suicide or euthanasia.

So you'll need to think back about what the difference is between those two.

So one example has been filled in for you in the second column.

The third column is whether it's legal in the UK.

So yes or no.

And finally, an ethical question.

So something you might need to consider if you were making up your mind on the issue.

So we have an example for the first scenario, which is left blank for you to create.

But the question is, who has the right to decide if someone can't make a choice? And for the final scenario we have, is it more acceptable for a patient to take the dose themselves rather than it be administered by someone else? So take some time to think about what scenarios would fit with those ethical questions or those types of euthanasia or the legality and fill in all the gaps on the table.

And when you're done, return to the lesson and you can then check to see if got it right, pause the video.

So it can be quite difficult to work out what type of euthanasia fits with what.

So well done if you managed to get any of these right.

For the first one, I gave the suggestion of a patient in a coma taken off life support.

This is euthanasia is actually specifically passive euthanasia, which is why it's legal in the UK.

The second example I gave was a doctor giving a patient a lethal injection at their request.

We already knew this was euthanasia, but it is in particular active euthanasia and no, it's not legal in the UK, which we knew already.

So my question here is intentionally causing death morally different from letting someone die? So I'm wondering whether there's anything kind of worse about active euthanasia than passive? And for the final scenario, which you were provided with, this is an example of assisted suicide because the patient requests to be able to end their own life.

And no, it is not legal in the UK because it is an active type.

So well done if you manage to get some examples of scenarios that fit with those ethical questions, the legality and the type of euthanasia or assisted suicide.

So let's move on to the second part of our lesson.

We're going to be looking at Christian 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 and Church teachings.

They might also think about the advice of Church leaders and fellow Christians.

Christians also sometimes follow ethical theories such as natural law and situation ethics.

They would also perhaps think about their conscience and reason which they might regard as gifts given to them by God to enable them to make decisions.

One important point is that Christians might interpret the sources differently, particularly the Bible for example, or they might emphasise the value of one source over another.

Let's have a look at a Bible teaching.

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

This suggests that all human life has intrinsic value and is sacred.

So it could be used to argue that euthanasia is wrong because it is showing that life is sacred, the sanctity of life, and you might therefore assume that life should be protected until natural death.

However, it is possible to use this quotation to argue that euthanasia is acceptable because you could say that by not allowing it and by preserving life, whatever the cost, you are actually dishonouring the sanctity of life.

It's important to bear in mind though that most Christians would interpret this as suggesting that life should be protected.

"You shall not murder." This is one of the 10 commandments from Exodus 20, verse 13.

So it suggests that intentional killing is wrong and would seem therefore to go against euthanasia.

It breaks the commandment.

However, it could suggest that euthanasia is acceptable since passive euthanasia, taking away treatment is not intentionally ending a life.

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

So this suggests that life is a gift from God.

The body is sacred and holy, and humans are stewards of their own bodies.

So it might seem to be obviously against euthanasia, suggesting that you are harming or disrespecting the body and therefore harming or disrespecting the temple where God lives.

But on the other hand, it would be possible to argue that because the body is a temple, we should maintain its dignity and therefore sometimes allowing euthanasia may be a way of respecting someone's dignity.

"Love your neighbour as yourself." Matthew 22 verse 39.

So loving one's neighbour means showing compassion.

Now with this quotation, it would be possible to say that euthanasia is wrong since ending someone's life is not loving, particularly if you're deciding their life has not got quality and is not worth living.

On the other hand, it's perhaps more likely that someone would use this quotation to argue in favour of euthanasia, to say that it's acceptable since the intention is to end suffering, which would be an act of love.

"Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?" Job 2 verse 10.

This quotation comes from the story of Job where he endures great suffering and hardship and yet remains strong in his faith.

God allows Satan to test Job's faith.

Job loses his livestock, servants and children.

He endures the suffering and he learns that only God can understand its purpose.

In the end, he accepts God's wisdom, and his fortunes are restored.

So the idea of value coming from suffering is a really important one in Christianity.

Christ himself suffered on the cross for the good of other people, it would suggest its suffering has a purpose that euthanasia is perhaps wrong because it denies the value of suffering.

On the other hand, it might mean that you could accept euthanasia because in the case of euthanasia, the suffering is unbearable.

Job's suffering was something he could endure.

Let's check your understanding.

Which Bible verse could be used to argue against euthanasia by emphasising the intrinsic value of human life? Is it A, "Love your neighbour as yourself?" Matthew 22, verse 39.

Is it B, "So God created mankind in his own image?" Genesis 1:27.

Is it C, "Shall we accept good from God but not trouble?" Job 2:10.

Or is it D, "You shall not murder." Exodus 20 verse 13.

Take a moment to decide on your answer.

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

So well done if you put B, "So God created mankind in his own image." In 1992, Dr.

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

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

So we're going to think about some views from different Christian denominations on this particular scenario.

Ranging from looking at whether they disagree to potentially, whether they agree.

Now in this instance, the Catholic Church very definitely disagreed with what Dr.

Cox did.

It teaches that intentionally ending a life violates the sanctity of life, and that true compassion is caring for the dying, not hastening their death.

This comes from the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

The Angelican Church teaches that ending a life is wrong because life is sacred and that there should be compassionate end-of-life care instead.

This is from the 1998 Lambeth Conference.

So they agreed with the Catholic view of this scenario.

Now, Pentecostal teaching also agreed because it says that deliberately ending a life goes against God's authority over life and death.

True faith is trusting in God's healing power.

This comes from the Assemblies of God paper, "Suicide, Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia" from 1996.

So looking at a different scenario, we have Baby C who was born with a severe brain abnormality in 2004.

Baby C couldn't breathe unaided and had no chance of recovery.

With her parents' agreement, the doctors withdrew ventilation, allowing her to die peacefully and to avoid a life of continued suffering.

So let's have a think about the Church views on this particular scenario.

So in this case, the Catholic Church actually allows withdrawing treatment if it only prolongs the suffering without hope of recovery.

This lets death occur naturally rather than actively ending a life, which is why it's acceptable.

The Church of England also accepted this scenario teaching that life is sacred, but the maintaining dignity and quality of life is also important.

So for Baby C, there was no quality of life.

Withdrawing life support is therefore acceptable if by keeping up, you are only prolonging someone's suffering.

And in this scenario, the Pentecostal teaching also agreed saying that life should be preserved wherever possible, but the stopping treatment that only delays dying is acceptable.

So let's 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.

Take a moment to think about whether it's true or false? But I'd also like you to think about why? Pause the video and come back when you're ready to see what you might have said.

So well done if you notice that this is true.

But why? Well withdrawing treatment in cases of terminal illness can prevent prolonged suffering and it allows for a natural death.

So this is acceptable for all Christians because they would all argue that keeping someone in pain and suffering deliberately is unacceptable.

So for task B, looking at Christian views on euthanasia, Lucas has written two short paragraphs in answer to the question, "Explain from either two religions or two religious traditions, beliefs about euthanasia." I'd like you to extend his answer by completing the table, linking each belief to a source of authority and explaining its influence.

So this is a really important skill to develop in RE at GCSC being able to explain, but also linking in some scripture and making that reference to the importance of the belief.

So Lucas has said, first of all, for many Christians, active euthanasia is wrong because life is sacred and has intrinsic value.

Now for his work on the source, he says, it is supported by which shows? Now your job using those sentence starters is to actually name a source that supports that belief, say what it says, and then to link it to the belief.

And then your final part of expanding his first paragraph is to say what the impact of that belief is.

The second part of Lucas's answer, he says, some Christians accept passive euthanasia because prolonging suffering by continuing treatment is not loving.

And here again, you're going to use the same sentence structure.

You're going to say it is supported by: a name, a source, and state what it says, and then which shows, linking it to that belief.

And finally, you're going to comment on the importance or impact by saying the impact of this belief is.

So, take some time to think about Lucas' basic answer and to see how you could develop and expand on that with what you have learned about Christian teachings.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said for the first part that the belief that active euthanasia is wrong is supported by the teaching which teaches, "God created mankind in his own image", which shows Christians believe all human life is valuable and should be protected.

The impact or influence of this belief is that many Christians support hospices as they support a natural death with dignity and oppose the legalisation of euthanasia.

On the other hand, the belief that some Christians accept passive euthanasia because prolonging suffering is wrong, is supported by the teaching of Jesus.

"Love your neighbour," which shows the importance of compassion, which some believe includes withholding treatment because it would lead to more suffering.

And the impact or importance of this is that some Christians support living wills to prevent unnecessary suffering.

So let's have a look at the third part of our lesson on arguments about euthanasia.

David and Fergus are both Anglicans.

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

And 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 says, "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 we can see here that although they're both Anglicans, they're both interpreting their Church's teaching slightly differently.

And Fergus is regarding each situation separately and potentially accepting at times maybe active euthanasia if it seems to him to be the most loving and merciful choice.

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 is a legal document that lets people state their wishes about medical treatment when they are no longer able to communicate." Fergus says, "I agree that 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 here they are both in complete agreement that actually passive euthanasia is acceptable.

And it might be very helpful to have a document like a living will where someone has signed to say what they would like to happen in a case where they're unable to say, in terms of the end of life care.

I'd like you to think about what Fergus and David disagree on and why? But also, what they agree on and why? So if you're able to turn and talk to someone nearby, please do or you can talk to me.

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

Let's check your understanding.

What is the primary purpose of a hospice? Is it A, to administer euthanasia? B, to provide palliative care and comfort? C, to outline someone's wishes for medical treatment, including decisions about life sustaining treatments? Or D to cure terminal illness? So take a moment to decide on your answer.

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

Let's have a look at what you should have said.

You should have chosen B, because a hospice is about palliative care and comfort.

It doesn't administer euthanasia, it doesn't cure an illness.

And the document outlining someone's wishes is known as a living will.

Well done if you manage to get that one correct.

A 2013 survey asked Americans their views on end of life treatment.

So they were asked whether there are circumstances in which a patient should be allowed to die? Which is highlighted in blue.

Or where the medical staff should do everything possible to save someone's life? Overall, 66% felt there were circumstances when someone should be allowed to die? In the 18 to 29 bracket, that was 54%.

30 to 49, it was 64.

50 to 64, it was 71%.

65 to 74, it was 76%.

And 75 plus it was 74%.

So have a look at the data carefully.

What does this data tell us about the impact of age and views on end of life treatment? If you're able to turn and talk to someone nearby, please do.

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

So you may have noticed that younger people are less likely to say there are times when someone ought to be allowed to die.

Arguments against the legalisation of assisted dying centre around the value of life.

Life has intrinsic value.

Regardless of its quality, we should support with palliative care such as that provided by hospices.

Suffering itself has value, it helps people to grow, and we should not devalue that.

And in fact, potentially devaluing suffering discriminates against people who live in chronic pain or with disabilities or illnesses.

And finally, one argument against is that legalising assisted dying is a slippery slope.

In other words, it might make people who are vulnerable feel pressured to choose it against their own will.

Zoe, who's a psychologist and an atheist, has been asked whether she thinks euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legalised? She says, "I don't think euthanasia or assisted suicide should be legalised.

I value human dignity and think legalising euthanasia could lead to vulnerable people being pressured into ending their lives.

It can also be misused for financial or emotional gain.

Instead, we should focus on improving palliative care to support those who are suffering." So what arguments does Zoe use to support her view on the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide? Take a moment, pause the video, talk to someone nearby or to me, have a read of what Zoe said and then come back when you are ready to move on.

How might Zoe's opinion on the legalisation of assisted dying be influenced by her role as a psychologist? So pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Although Zoe is an atheist, many Christians would agree with her.

Why is this? Again, pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Arguments for the legalisation of assisted dying centre around autonomy, which is freedom of choice.

One argument is that people have the right to choose to end their life and that no one else has the right to tell them they should continue to live a life of intolerable pain.

Assisted dying is in fact a compassionate response to people in pain, and it provides relief from suffering when there are no other options.

And finally, choosing assisted dying means that people can maintain their dignity.

Those who choose it avoid experiencing a loss of control.

Brandon, who's a Humanist and a hospice nurse, has been asked whether he thinks euthanasia and assisted suicide should be legalised? He says, "My priority is to provide compassionate, high-quality care that maximises comfort and dignity at the end of life.

I value autonomy and believe euthanasia should be legalised under strict conditions.

If this happened, hospices would play a vital role in providing palliative care, ensuring euthanasia never became a substitute for compassionate end of life support." So let's have a think about Brandon's view.

How is Brandon's opinion on the legalisation of euthanasia and assisted suicide influenced by his Humanist worldview? So take a moment, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, and come back when you're ready to move on.

How might Brandon's opinion on the legalisation of assisted dying be influenced by his role as a hospice nurse? So again, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me, pause the video and come back when you're ready to move on.

Although many Christians would disagree with Brandon, some would agree with him.

Why is this? So take some time to think about the views that you've already looked at, the Christian views and why there are some Christians who might accept active euthanasia such as the type that Brandon is suggesting should be legalised.

Turn and talk to someone nearby if you can.

Pause the video and rejoin when you're ready to move on.

So let's check your understanding.

Here are four arguments about euthanasia.

What I'd like you to do is fill in the missing words.

Euthanasia is wrong because: life has intrinsic.

Something care helps relieve pain and suffering.

And then euthanasia is right because it allows people to maintain their and everyone has the right to.

So take a moment, pause the video and jot down what four words or phrases you think should go into those gaps.

Come back when you're ready to see what you might have written.

So well done if you put value for the first one, life has intrinsic value.

And palliative care helps relieve pain and suffering.

For the arguments that euthanasia is right.

You might have used the word dignity.

It allows people to maintain their dignity and that everyone has the right to choose.

So well done if you've got the same words as me or something very similar or close.

So for part one of task C, I'd like you to complete the table below, setting up the positives and negatives of legalising euthanasia.

Keywords to include would be autonomy, meaning freedom, compassion, dignity, pressure, palliative care, slippery slope, and suffering.

So use these to list some positives and some negatives of legalising euthanasia or assisted dying.

Take your time, pause the video and come back when you're ready to see what positives and negatives you might have come up with.

So for positives, I've included: it respects an individual's autonomy, allowing them to make decisions about their own life and death.

It will be a compassionate option for those in unbearable pain.

It would allow individuals to maintain their dignity by choosing to end their life before they experienced prolonged suffering.

And for negatives, vulnerable individuals may experience pressure to choose euthanasia, thus compromising their autonomy.

It might encourage society to overlook other ways to address suffering such as palliative care.

It could create a slippery slope leading to its use in cases beyond terminal illness or unbearable suffering.

Now of course, your positives and negatives might be quite different from mine, but have a look at these, see if any of them match or see if there's anything that you want to correct or add to your own.

Well done if you've got some things that were similar to what I have suggested.

Moving on to the second part of our task, I'd like you to choose the strongest point to agree or disagree that euthanasia should be legalised.

And you're going to explain why it's a strong argument.

So this is a really important skill in a GCSE evaluation question.

You can just list arguments.

You can just explain them.

But to get the higher marks, you need to evaluate them and discuss them.

And this is where talking about their strengths or weaknesses is really useful.

So here are some suggested sentences to help you with that.

A strong argument which agrees or disagrees that euthanasia should be legalised is, and then you could use any of the four following sentences.

This is a strong argument as.

This argument is compelling because.

The argument is powerful as it.

This argument is convincing because.

So pause the video, take your time to think about which argument you're going to choose from the table that you recorded earlier, and then develop that by commenting on its strength.

Pause the video, come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

So in my answer I said, an argument which suggests euthanasia should be legalised, is that it could be a compassionate option for those in unbearable pain.

I said, this argument is compelling because it focuses on the need to reduce suffering for people in extreme pain.

If euthanasia and assisted suicide is legal, more people who can't be helped by other treatments can choose to end their pain peacefully.

Now of course, your answer might be quite different from mine because it depended on which points you picked from the table of positives and negatives.

But well done if you manage to really expand on the strength of the argument.

In today's lesson, we have looked at the fact that the Bible teaching shows 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 they 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.

We've learned a lot today, so thank you very much for all of your hard work and the effort that you've put in.