ABORTION AND EUTHANASIA: PHILOSOPHICAL

STUDIES IN BIO-ETHICS
BY
Alloy S Ihuah PhD
Dept of Rel. & Philosophy,
Benue State University,
Makurdi.

ABSTRACT
According to religious traditions, the life of every human being is sacred. The
Hippocratic Oath which enjoins medical professionals to save life is more than anything the
promotion and protection of one of the natural rights of man. In recent times, however,
particularly since World War II, abortion and Euthanasia have come to be more and more
accepted. We argue that, any act of omission and or commission that denies man this right is
ab initio a negation of the Devine will. This paper therefore describeS the different kinds of
abortion as well as euthanasia. Secondly, It outlines the Christian tradition on the concept of
human life and the contemporary debate in philosophical and religious circles on abortion
and euthanasia. The paper further illumines on the status of the Nigerian law on abortion and
the Christian vision of the morality of human life today.

Abortion

A. Definition and Types of Abortion

In medical parlance abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy,
spontaneously or by induction, prior to viability. Thereafter the termination of pregnancy is
called delivery. In layman’s terms abortion may be simply described as an act of destroying
the life of an unborn baby, either by way of killing it in the womb or by taking it out of the
womb before it is able to survive. In order to understand more fully the morality of abortion
we distinguish different kinds of abortion.
(1) Spontaneous Abortion: is unwillful termination of pregnancy before delivery due to the
rapeutic or other reasons. It is commonly called a miscarriage. It is common in about 20% of
pregnancies, usually between 11 and 14 weeks of pregnancy. The causes of spontaneous
abortion are many, although sometimes no cause can be established.
(2) Induced Abortion: is any procedure by which the normal course of the development of
the fetus is purposely interfered with. Induced abortions have been classified as therapeutic
and non-therapeutic in the past, the terms often being used synonymously with legal and
illegal abortions respectively. The synonymous use of the terms stemmed from the fact that
licensed physicians, operating in hospitals, were not prosecuted for performing abortions
where a threat to the life of the mother existed.

1
(3) Criminal Abortion is any form of abortion that makes one liable to persecution in
accordance with the criminal code. We shall deal with this in more detail later.
(4) Therapeutic Abortion is the artificial termination of pregnancy in the interest of the
mother’s life and health. Doctors have not hesitated to terminate pregnancy when there is a
risk to maternal life. In the famous Bourne case (1938) it was held that it was not unlawful to
terminate a pregnancy of a 15 year old girl pregnant as a result of rape by several soldiers in
that her life, in the sense of the mental well-being of the girl, was at a risk if abortion did not
take place.
(5) Indirect Abortion is a distinct form from direct abortion which consists in the direct
destructing of the fetus for any purpose. Thus both criminal abortions and therapeutic
abortions are normally direct abortions. Indirect abortion is medical intervention to preserve
the life of the mother or remedy the health of the mother in which the destruction of the fetus
is foreseen as an un-intended and not necessarily connected though unavoidable effect of that
intervention.

B. The Christian Tradition on Abortion

In order to understand the Christian tradition on abortion we must see it in the light of
its scriptural sources. From the early books of the Bible, particularly Genesis and Exodus, we
know that life is a gift from God. Men were created to live in loving relationship with each
other and with God Himself in a call that He initiated. Being called into existence men are
endowed with that mysterious gift which they call life. Such life comes into being by an act
which shares in the creative power of God Himself.
‘It was you who called my inmost self.
and put me together in my mother’s womb;
for all these mysteries I thank you;
for the wonder of myself, for the wonder
of your work . (Ps. 139:13)
In fact in the Pentateuch, (Torash), the first five books of the bible, there is only one
reference to abortion:
If, when men come to blows, they hurt a woman who is pregnant and
she suffers a miscarriage, though she does not die of it, the man responsible
must pay the compensation demanded of him by the woman’s master; he shall
hand it over after arbitration. But should she die, you shall give life for life,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn,
wound for wound, stroke for stroke (Ex. 21:22-25).
In fact authors dispute the significance of his passage from the scripture teaching on
abortion. Some claim that this passage indicates that life in the womb must be thought of in
terms of personal being. According to this view the law of retaliation is made to apply in
cases of injury to a mother or even a child in her womb or both. According to another view
the law of retaliation here lays down that in the event of the death of the mother, the eye for
eye’ formula must be applied. But, if the fetus dies, the culprit must pay the appropriate fine.
Followers of this view, and they are many, would claim that in this passage the fetus is not a
human being.

2
 But scattered throughout the scriptures there are phrases, which support the stricter
view. Jeremiah 1:5 speaks of the consecration of the prophet before he was born. The
evangelist Luke moreover, describes how the unborn baby in Elizabeth’s womb leaped for
joy at Mary’s greeting (Luke 1:41).
Although one cannot be too dogmatic in these delicate issues of interpretation one can
conclude that scripture supports the motion that God at all times has a very special care for all
human life, that even in the case of the abortion of the fetus, the issue is not so much whether
it can be destroyed or not, but whether in fact it is a human being or not. Clearly if an
interpretation is proposed that suggests that because God is the source of that life then at no
stage may an aborting intervention take place. But if the ‘personalising’ and ‘humanising’ of
the fetus is a process then one could distinguish the animated and inanimated stage of the
fetus.
In fact this latter interpretation gained a considerable hold on the Christian tradition
through the Greek translation of the bible, the Septuagint of the 3rd century B.C. and the
theory of Aristotle (at the same time) on the animation fetus.
According to Aristotle the human soul was infused into the fetus when it took on the
human form or figure, that is, forty days after conception for a male and ninety in the case of
female. But before these times the fetus did not have a soul and therefore was not a human
being.
The New Testament says nothing explicit about abortion, but the incompatibility of
abortion, as well as infanticide, with the Christian message, come through quite clearly. The
early documents of the Church contain clear condemnations of both practices.
Down through the centuries there has been a tendency either to emphasize a strict
teaching based on Exodus and Scripture in general or a more moderate position based on the
Septuagint and the influence of Aristotle.
In the Roman Catholic tradition Pope Sixtus V. had imposed a penalty of ex-
communication on all forms of abortion, whether the fetus was formed or unformed. Though
this legislation was modified in 1591 to refer to formed fetuses alone, in 1869 Pius IX
extended the excommunication to all forms of abortion. By this time medical theories of
delayed animation had given way to the proponents of earlier animation.
In due course the theory of indirect abortion was developed and accepted in the
Catholic Church. It is based on the principle of double effect. It may be formulated as
follows: When from a licit act there immediately followed two effects, one good and the
other bad, and the good outweighs the bad, it is licit to intend the good and permit the evil.
Since however this principle is mainly concerned here with direct abortion we do not develop
the teaching on indirect abortion and the principles relating to it.
Early protestant abortion attitudes show consideration continuity with those of the
pre-sixteenth century church. The major reformers – Martin Luther (1483-1450), Philip
Melanchton (1497-1559) and John Calvin (1509-1564) were at least as conservative as the
Roman Catholic Church on the issues of emolument and the gravity of abortion.
The reformers insisted upon the full humanity of the fetus from the time of conception
and thus were rigorously opposed to abortion. While the conservative line persisted
throughout the 19th century there was a changing of attitudes in Protestant circles particularly
in America in the 20th century. This resulted largely from the process of secularization, the

3
freedom and self-determination movements and the growth of the pluralist society; the
destination between a crime and a sin was also a factor. Thus in protestant opinion, there was
a change from absolute anti-abortion to abortion on-request, with perhaps the larger number
of moralists and protestants affirming the justifiability of abortion in certain situations of
value conflict, particularly regarding the life and health of the mother.

The Morality of Abortion

Those who call for legalization or liberalization of the law on abortion do so as a way
out of different kinds of complications and dilemmas. Accordingly, the circumstances, which
are alleged as justifying reasons for abortions are called INDICATIONS.
Henry Peschke distinguished four such indications:
1. Eugenic Indication
It calls for abortion in instances where the expected offspring with great probability
will be affected with serious defects. The defects may be caused by genetic disorders or by
acquired sickness e.g. German Measles of mother during pregnancy. But it should be warned
that there is danger that more healthy than defective babies may be aborted for eugenic
reasons. Besides, in the case of some genetic disorders it is possible, and it may become more
possible in the future to minimize the danger through appropriate therapies.
2. Ethical Indication
This indication is bad when the pregnancy is due to rape. Defenders of this position
argue that abortion is considered justified in this case since the child is an undue burden force
upon the mother against her will, who therefore will find great difficulty to love the child
further more they argue, his continued existence exposes the mother to great moral strains
and social shame. We may include under this indication cases of incest and adultery.
3. Social Indication
Abortion is called for if the (additional) child were too great a social or more
specifically, too great an economic burden for the family or for the mother. The economic
factor for abortion is however weakened by the fact that, abortion is in fact more common
among those who enjoy greater economic security than among the poor, although dire
poverty does actually contribute to the dangerous situation.
4. Medical or Therapeutic Indication
Abortion is indicated if the life of the mother is in serious danger because of
pregnancy. Non-Catholics are of the view that, under, this circumstances even directly
procured abortion is justified. Abortion is similarly allowed for psychiatric reasons.
Catholic ethics on the other hand rejects any kind of Abortion be it eugenic, social and
economic and consider it simply as murder of the innocent. It admit of therapeutic abortion
(indirect Abortion) in cases of serious danger for the mother’s life.
Generally, abortion is considered as a crime and grave sanctions were issued by the
church (catholic) against Christians who dare commit this sin. The present cannon law
inflicts excommunication upon those who procure abortion (CJC, 2350). The church’s

4
official document states: “From the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the
greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes” (Vat. II; Gs 51). For the
church therefore the intrinsic reasons for the abjectness of abortion are the same as those
which militate against the crime of murder and the killings of an innocent in general.

The Problem of Direct Therapeutic Abortion

Although abortion in general has universally been rejected in the church, therapeutic abortion
as a means to save the life of the mother is a very controversial issue. For instance, while
rejecting abortion in general as murder, Tertullian (Church father) seems to approve of
therapeutic abortion as a ‘cruel necessity’. Says he:
But sometimes by cruel necessity, while yet in the womb, an infant is put
to death, when lying awry in the mother’s of the womb he
impedes parturition and kills his mother if he is not to die
himself.
Indeed from the 15th – 17th centuries several theologians held the opinion that the
direct abortion of a non-animated fetus is permissible in order to save the mothers life.
The first express and absolute disapproval of therapeutic abortion came from Pope
Pius XI in the encyclical “Cash connubii”. Accordingly, the medical and therapeutic
indications are plainly rejected as a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct
murder of the innocent’. This position was adopted by both Pope Pius XII and Paul VI.
Thus for the Catholic Church abortion is simply the direct killing of the innocent
which is immoral and forbidden under any circumstance whatsoever. Non-Catholics on the
other hand generally regard therapeutic abortion as justified in certain instances.
However the arguments for and against abortion, four reasons have been advanced by
the older theologians of direct therapeutic abortion.
1. It is lawful to accelerate the anyhow imminent death of the fetus somewhat in
order to save at least the life of the mother.
2. One can justly assume that in a crisis where the mother’s life is at stake, the fetus
would be ready to sacrifice his life, if in this way the mother can be saved.
3. Placed between two evils, one may and even must choose the lesser one, which in
this case is the killing of the fetus.
4. The fetus is an unjust aggressor and may be killed as such in order to save the
mother’s life.

However, the first three arguments have been rejected for failing to show that the
abortion of the fetus is not a direct killing of an innocent, which is immoral and unlawful.
Accordingly Henry Peschke argues:
He (the child) does not overstep his right and rob by any unjust
means the mother of her rights. Rather, one could call the mother
a materially unjust aggressor of the infant, because it is her
pathological condition which hinders the infant to leave her
womb alive.

5
 Nevertheless, the arguments point out some truths which merit attention, namely
when two evils are at stake, it’s advisable to choose the lesser one. Therefore, the
spontaneous judgement of common sense is that the death of the fetus alone is certainly
preferable to the death of the mother and fetus together. As stated above, God alone is the
owner of human life and man only its steward. Therefore man is not allowed to dispose of
other people’s life, unless a higher good is at stake, whose safeguarding is willed by God
even more urgently. Hence in the issue under consideration, the preservation of the uterus
through direct abortion of the fetus is a higher good than the destruction of the uterus and
child together; the preservation of the mother’s life through direct abortion is a greater good
than the death of mother and child together.
Contemporary Debate on Abortion
Since approximately 1950 there has been an ongoing debate about abortion as the
availability and public acceptance of abortion have increased considerably in most societies.
Many religions consider abortion to be a significant moral issue and practically all the major
ones traditionally condemn it. But this is not necessarily the case today, though those who
have changed in their attitudes appeal more to rational arguments than to the source of their
belief.
Various reasons have been proposed for justifying direct abortion to protect the life of
the mother, to safeguard the physical and mental health of the mother, to act as a remedy
against injustice, due to rape or incest, to prevent the birth of defective children, to indicate
the right of the women, and to alleviate economic, sociological, or demographical problems.
These reasons all have been validity, but they must be seen in a larger context including the
zygote-embryo-fetus-and its value or rights.
Most philosophers and theologists recognize that the heart of the abortion problems is
the difficult question of the beginning of human life, since human beings are treated
differently from all other beings.
The question then is simply: when does human life truly begin? Opinions about the
beginning of truly human life may be conveniently categorized in two ways:
(a) In terms of the criteria about the beginning of truly human life, which
range from the moment of conception to various stages in fetal development, viability,
birth and for some time after birth.
(b) In terms of the criteria employed for the determining the beginning of
truly human life. The following types of criteria best categorize and summarize the
abundant literature on the subject:
(i) individual-biological,
(ii) relational,
(ii) multiple and
(iii) theconferral of rights by society
Now there is no absolute correction between method and a and b, that is between the
criterion employed and the conclusion about the beginning of truly human life. But
the following tendencies do exist:
- the individual-biological criterion tends to place the beginning of
human life at conception or early stages of development;

6
 - the relational and conferral of rights criteria usually accept a rather late
point in development for the beginning of truly human life; the multiple approach
often results in an intermediary position.

One of the characteristics of the contemporary debate has been the interest shown by
professional philosophers in the question of abortion. Until very recently philosophers tended
to neglect content questions such as abortion, but changes in philosophy and the strong
interest within society on this question have changed this. The writing of the philosophers,
while not numberous to date, has frequently added precision of thought to the contemporary
debate. In general there is no doubt that in the contemporary debate since 1950 many voices
have been raised in favour of the position that the fetus is not a truly human being, from the
moment of conception and therefore abortion is morally acceptable for various reasons. Such
a sentiments obviously have had an effect on public opinion and on changing abortion laws in
a number of countries, even though, there is not a strict correlating between questions of law
and questions of morality. However it is interesting to note in the last few years some former
advocates of abortion have expressed either a change of mind or doubt about the morality of
abortion, at least to the extent that they want to caution against a too ready acceptance of
abortion. The general public, philosophers and theologians continue to be divided on the
issue.
The Law and Abortion Today
In all developing legal systems, abortion has been and is more or less explicitly
regulated by law. The specific legal norms in relation to abortion vary widely from country to
country, and from time to another. In Nigeria itself abortion is dealt with in the criminal code.
The relevant sections of the criminal code are 228, 229, 230 and 297 that deals with the only
way in which legally abortion is allowed today. Section 228 states: ‘Any person who, with
intent to procure miscarriage of a woman whether she is not or with child, unlawfully or other
noxious thing, or was any force of any kind, or uses any other means whatever, is guilty of
felony, and is liable to imprisonment for 14years’.
Section 222 also punishes the woman who independently procures her own
miscarriage. She becomes liable to imprisonment for up to 7 years.
Section 230 also punishes the person who supplies drugs or anything whatever
knowing that it is intended unlawfully to be used to procure a miscarriage.
In 1980 a bill was introduced known as “The Termination of Pregnancy Law, 1980”
which proposed the liberalization of abortion more or less in the same way as the 1967 Bill in
England. But the bill was defeated.
The Morality of Abortion
In determining the moral issue of abortion there are certain basic principle and further
refinements that govern the debate on the problem among believers today:
1. God is indeed the creator of life in general, of human life in
particular, of both the body and soul of the human being. The unity of both body and
soul is fundamental to the Christian vision, both on natural grounds and on biblical
grounds.

7
2. God the Creator is omniscient and personal, god’s name is
love. But this assertion is both simple and profound, indeed mysterious.
3. Men and women are pre-creators with God. In respect to
genetics, they are certainly pre-creators of the physical body of the offspring. And
though we may know almost nothing of the generation of the soul or age, it is at least
credible that god gives this also through the parents.
4. Any human creature, and every one of the billions of
human creatures who have ever lived, can be said to have been made “in the image of
god”. Biblical scholars and theologians dispute the hearing of this phrase. But in one
respect there is no room for dispute: It is the image that accounts for the humanum the
distinctly human character and quality of every one.
5. Each human being is unique and irreplaceable. In the realm
of being, no one can take the place of another. This is self-evidently the case for every
conscious person who knows herself to be an image of God. With respect to unborn
human life, it has been assumed to be true; today it is known to the true. According to
recent genetic theories, long before it is possible to imagine that the human being
possesses individualized consciousness, the uniqueness of genetic structure has been
determined by the union of male and female genes. Theolosius Bobzhasky, the Nobel
laureate in genetics, says that the possible variations of human genotypes constitute so
vast a number as to be equally theoretically to the number of atoms in the universe.
Uniqueness does not wait on one’s being born and becoming a conscious person, each
combination of ovum and spermatozoon initiates unique life.
6. True humanity is found not in individualization, but in
human community. The Creator decreed ‘it is not good’ for the creature to live alone,
and caused life to be relational and communal in its very essence. Within the womb and
until the tomb, every human life is dependent on some other life. At whatever stage of
development prior to birth, the unborn human entity has an indispensable relationship to
the woman who can become the mother and vice versa. And however, remote and
minimal their consciousness of it may be, other members of the woman’s family and of
society share in this human relationship, which can be reciprocated by conscious
experience only after birth.
7. The definition and identity of life (human) must be given in
terms of personhood, and not alone in terms of living tissue yet it is as difficult for
theologians as for psychologists to determine the exact point in the continuum of tissue
life when it can be said that personhood has been attained in even the least meaning of
the concept; and it is equally difficult (which means impossible) to define categorically
the point when a human being has crossed the threshold of real or authentic personhood.
The belief in personhood is basic, but the definition remains in dispute.
8. For Christian faith, the definition of life in terms of
personhood is determined by the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as the true pattern of
authentic human personhood and as the divine lord of life. What can be known of life in
a personal and moral rather than a physiological sense is learned from what we knew of
Jesus Christ. God’s being in Christ to reconcile a wayward human race to himself
means that God gave in Christ the one after whom and through whom humankind in the

8
 sense of the totality of the race created in God’s image? In membership in humankind
conditional on a criterion of conscious personhood. And when in the continuum of
human development does the relationship to Jesus Christ begin? When the individual
makes a profession of faith? Or when this individual comes into existence?
Sanctity of Life
These are eight expressions of Christian faith that are widely held among Christians
belonging to various denominations and having different ethical perspectives. I choose these
eight because they pertain to the question of abortion, not because they are the only basic
Christian affirmation. And they are affirmations, not speculative hypotheses or abstract
principles.
In some churches, (e.g. Roman Catholic) such theological affirmations are held to be
revealed truth, and as such are regarded as premises from which certain deductions may be
drawn. The deductions generally drawn from the statements about the unbroken continuum of
human life created by God for conformity to the pattern of Jesus Christ (i.e. for full
humanity) is that abortion is willful destruction of human life; it is tantamount to murder.
According to some writers this deductionist approach is too abstractionist and severe;
it lacks contextuality: it focuses all attention on the unborn human life and decrees that this
life, created by God and destined for salvation, must under no circumstances, be destroyed.
The one exception is, as we have acted, the case of double effect.
These same writers propose what they describe as contextual reasoning. Contextual
reasoning is concerned with all the persons involved in a case of possible abortion. Most
especially the woman, but also the family and widening circles of the family.
If one were to follow the Roman Catholic position one would have to reason as
follows: When unborn life that is not as yet viable threatens the health and well being of the
pregnant woman or others there cannot be a choice of one life over the other.
If however one were to follow the way of contextual reasoning, one would argue that
such a deductionist theological rule would not do. But, then, what may be put in its place? Is
there an alternative?
Many Christians in discussing abortion talk about the sanctity of life. But very
frequently terms are not adequately defined. And if we are to make progress in the debate we
must define both ‘sanctity’ and ‘life’.
(a) One who holds a rigorously prohibitive view of means to say that the
living cells of the embryo or fetus, having been made and destined by the holy God,
are literally holy. Thus the sanctity of life inheres in its being given by God and
destined to be a human person who is to realize authentic personhood in communion
with God. Whatever the context, the unborn human life is sacred and must not be
killed.
(b) But those who hold a liberal view on abortion see nothing morally
wrong in the termination of a pregnancy if this will ostensibly contribute to the health,
well being and fulfillment of the woman concerned and in a small way will also
mitigate certain ills of society. In this case, sanctity of life is really equated with
another much used phrase: quality of life. This position owes more to the
enlightenment than to any of the Christian sources.

9
 (c) But a deeply Christian meaning can be given to the word “sanctity”.
The word sanctity certainly conveys the meaning of holiness. It has a transcendent
reference to God, who is holy. To be made holy, sanctified, means to be set apart by
God in the order of things for God’s own purpose. The way in which a human being
rises toward, or falls away from that divinely intended purpose is the complex story of
human misery and human grandeur. It involves the imminent working of God’s Spirit,
the mystery of evil and sin, and the strangely terrible and wonderful uses of human
freedom. For Christian faith, the story includes, above all, the redemptive work of
Jesus Christ and the response of people to him. In short, sanctity, is not restricted to
humaneness but summons up the whole range of belief and understanding about
God’s intention for human beings and their responsibility to God. It is this sense of
sanctity that many Christian apply when discussing the pregnant woman and the
unborn fetus.
(d) We may also carefully distinguish ‘sanctity of life’ with ‘quality of
life’. By ‘quality of life’ we refer simply to a life worth living or, at the most
hedonistic level, to a life bourgeois comfort. If ‘sanctity of life’ is identified with
‘quality of life’ then there is no point in applying the word sanctity to the life either of
the pregnant woman or to the unborn fetus if the fetus’ coming to term will probably
injure the quality of life of both; that is, if giving birth to and/or caring for a child
might interfere with the mother’s aspirations and plans for happiness and fulfillment;
and/or if the baby might have to develop in a situation entirely adverse to its chances
for a life of quality.
Bios and Zoe
We give here both terms used by the New Testament writers because the tendency is
to translate both as ‘life’ and thereby blur a very important distinction.
(a) Bios
Bios originally meant the way or conduct or quality of life. Accordingly, its English
descendent, ‘biology, once meant the study of human life and character. But today biology as
a life science is wholly concerned with what secular Greeks called ZOE; the phenomenon of
living tissue and organisms.
The New Testament writers used BIOS to designate the mere sustenance for mortal
existence and Zoe to speak of the sanctity, reality, and qualitative dimension of human living.
Zoe is the true and abundant life that God intends people to enjoy on earth and to have in
heaven.
But sometimes, some writers argue, that both of these concepts are confused and
much confusion is generated. For example, such writers consistently show that pregnancy
sometimes causes a conflict of life with life. True, but this can be taken in two senses:
a) Given a pathological condition on the part of the
pregnant woman, there may be a conflict of BIOS with BIOS, and choice must be
made between one BIOS and the other, that is, if one follows the methodology of
contextual reasoning.

10
 b) In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the
conflict is between the BIOS of the fetus and the ZOE of the woman, since ZOE of the
fetus can become a reality only after it is brought to birth.
c) Or again there are those who argue for abortion
on demographic ground saying in effect that the population millions of unborn
children threatens the collective ZOE of humankind. A secularized usage of the words
– a usage that, if one argues contextually, seems sensible and useful to many
Christians; reduces BIOS to a matter of histology and physiology and considers ZOE
hedonistically or humanistically. In both cases the Christian meaning is debased.
d) For Christian faith, true sanctity can be found in
BIOS and ZOE, but in differing degrees, so to speak. The Author and finisher of
Creation is God, the Holy One, who sanctifies. As creator God sanctifies with grace
the person who develops from the procreated human entity. Christian thinking about
and debates on the issues of a particular woman with child would be greatly helped if
this true meaning of sanctity were accepted by all as including both BIOS and ZOE,
with ZOE always having the higher whatever stage of development, as a disposable
‘thing’ nor would they have so strong a fixation on the preservation of the fetus at all
costs that they would be callous to either the pregnant woman’s ZOE or the well-
being of society. Then they could have the perception needed to resists the notion that
an unwanted child had better not have been born. And, very important, then they
would see that a battle for the rights of the unborn is only halt a war against
inhumanity – since the other half, which has equal claim on them, is the hard social
and legislative struggle to secure and realize the rights of both the bearer and the born
for a good life.
Conclusion
Clearly there are many possible opinions hence whatever opinions one holds one must
be sensitive to the opinion of others.
In such situations the role of the Christian is peculiarly challenging, but also
rewarding. From the Master Himself he has learned that he has come that people may have
life more abundantly. Such life is not only quantitative, qualitative, it is also transformed. All
human life, therefore, is extremely precious. The Christian witnesses to the uniqueness of
human life. But that form of witness is not the sole exclusive one. For the same Christ was
merciful compassionate, and the one caring for us all. Like Christ Himself, the Christian
holds these values in a very delicate balance. Given the limitations of our rights, the
tremendous complexity of the problems and the consequences of our decisions in this, one
indeed can only approach these matters with great caution. Neither the hardening of the
attitudes nor the self-righteous imposition of one’s views on others will help here. Yes, there
must be a genuine commitment to the truth, but also a holy and healthy respect for the views
of others.

2. Euthanasia.
(i) Introduction

11
 “Human life is the basis of all goods, and is the necessary source and condition of
every human activity and of all society. Most people regard life as something sacred and hold
that no one may dispose of it at will, but believers see in life something greater, namely a gift
of God’s love, which they are called upon to preserve and make fruitful”. (Declaration on
Euthanasia, 1980, p.2).

(ii) Definitions
(a) Until a few decades ago, euthanasia death was scarcely understood as a word, let
alone discussed except in a small circle of social theorizers. Many people still think of it in
terms originally defined by the Euthanasia Society of America as “the termination of human
life by painless means for the purpose of ending severe physical suffering”. (Hardon,
1980:245). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines euthanasia as follows:
“Gentle and easy death; bringing about of this, especially in case of incurable and painful
disease”. In Greek, EU – good; Thanatos – death.
(b) Active and Passive Euthanasia
Active euthanasia consists of direct actions, or acts of commission, designed to
terminate the life of an individual for humanitarian reasons. It is a direct effort to shorten
one’s life or that of another in situations of terminal illness or painful and protracted
afflictions. For instance, the terminal cancer patient may request that his life be shortened by
medical means. Active euthanasia is also called “mercy killing”. (La Roche, 1978:226)
Passive euthanasia does not involve any direct acts that would bring the individual’s
life to an end but rather consists in omitting actions or discontinuing procedures that maintain
or might maintain the individual in existence. Passive euthanasia is usually understood to
mean a situation in which death is imminent and there is very little chance that any medical
means will lengthen the conscious life of the person. In this situation ordinary and
extraordinary means of prolonging life are withdrawn, and the person is allowed to die. The
connotation of the adjective “passive” is that no one takes any direct steps to shorten the life
of the person (La Roche Ibid). This passive euthanasia is now called benemortasia
(c) Ordinary and Extraordinary Means of Preserving Life
The best definition for ‘ordinary’ means of preserving life from the ethical standpoint
seems to be that given by Gerald Kelly: “All medicines, treatments and operations, which
after a reasonable hope of benefit for the patient and which can be obtained without excessive
expense, pain or other inconveniences”.
All other means would be extraordinary. One is obliged to make use of the ordinary
means of preserving life. The failure to do so is equivalent to euthanasia. One is normally not
obliged to use extraordinary means though sometimes this might be obligatory due to special
circumstances (Read George Lobo).
(iii) Roman Catholic Viewpoint
Death does not always come in dramatic circumstances after barely tolerable
sufferings. Nor do we have to think only of extreme cases. Numerous testimonies which
confirm one another leads one to the conclusion that nature itself has made provision to
render more bearable at the moment of death separation that would be terribly painful to a
person in full health. Hence it is that a prolonged illness, advanced old age, or a state of
12
loneliness or neglect can bring about psychological conditions that facilitate the acceptance of
death. Nevertheless, the fact remains that death, often preceded or accompanied by severe
and prolonged suffering, is something, which naturally causes people anguish.
Physical suffering is certainly an unavoidable element of the human condition; on the
biological level it constitutes a warning of which no one denies the usefulness; but, since it
affects the human psychological makeup, it often exceeds its own biological usefulness and
so can become so severe as to cause the desire to remove it at any cost.
According to Christian teaching, however, suffering especially suffering during the
last moments of life, has a special place in God’s saving plan; it is in fact a sharing in Christ’s
Passion and a union with the redeeming sacrifice which he offered in obedience to the
father’s will. Therefore one must not be surprised if some Christians prefer to moderate their
use of painkillers, in order to accept voluntarily at least a part of their sufferings and thus
associate themselves in a conscious way with the sufferings of Christ crucified (Mathew 27,
34).
Nevertheless, it would be imprudent to impose a heroic way of acting as a general
rule. On the contrary, human and Christian prudence suggest for the majority of sick people
the use of medicines capable of alleviating or suppressing pain, even though these may cause
as a secondary effect semi-consciousness and reduced lucidity. As for those who are not in a
state to express themselves, one can reasonably presume that they wish to take these
painkillers, and have them administered according to the doctor’s advice.
But the intensive use of painkillers is not without difficulties, because the
phenomenon of habituation generally makes it necessary to increase their dosage in order to
maintain their efficacy. At this point it is fitting to recall a declaration by Pius XII, which
retains its full force, in answer to a group of doctors who had put the question: “Is the
suppression of pain and consciousness by the use of narcotics permitted by religion and
morality to the doctor and the patient (even at the approach of death and if one foresees that
the use of narcotics will shorten life)?” The Pope said:
If no other means exist, and if, in the given circumstances, this does not
prevent the carrying out of other religious and moral duties:
Yes”. In this case, of course, death is in no way intended or
sought, even if the risk of it is reasonably taken, the intention is
simply to relieve pain effectively, using for this purpose
painkillers available to medicine.

However, painkillers that cause unconsciousness need special consideration. For a

person not only has to be able to satisfy his or her moral duties and family obligations; he or
she also has to prepare himself or herself with full consciousness for meeting Christ. Thus
Pius XII warns: “It is not right to deprive the dying person of consciousness without a serious
reason”. (Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: June 26th, 1980).
(iv) Protestant Viewpoint
“Euthanasia is the act of putting to death a person suffering from incurable,
distressing disease. It is a violation of the Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill
(murder)”. – (Henry Carl, 1978; p.222). If the sufferer consents to his own destruction, he

13
becomes guilty of suicide. Such consent does not relive the killer of guilt for the sin of
murder.
Giving drugs to relive pain, however, is permitted. Proverbs 31, 6 recommends the
use of alcoholic drinks to relieve the suffering of the dying. Since alcohol is a narcotic drug,
we may by analogy assume that other such drugs may be given for constructive purposes.
“Yet, the use of any drug with the intent to kill or to hasten death has no support, explicit or
implicit, in the Bible” (Henry Carl,1978:228).
That classical representative of Protestant interpretation of the Bible, the Westminster
Larger Catechism, does not include mercy killing as a permissible reason for taking human
life. In 1950, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. approved an
overture pointing out that legislation which permits euthanasia is in direct conflict with the
interpretation of the Sixth Commandment as given in the Constitution of the Church. This
interpretation is in harmony with Scripture. Job, for example although he suffered
excruciatingly and knew no reason for his sufferings, refused to “curse God and die”. Now it
is known that his suffering had meaning in God’s plan, and we can infer from this that other
sufferings may not be without purpose. Moreover the possibility always remains that a cure
will be discovered for a supposedly incurable disease (Henry Carl, 1978).
(v) The Case of Karen Ann QUINLAN
The name Karen Quinlan became identified in 1975 in the minds of all who are
concerned about matters of life and death with the extraordinary possibility of the termination
of life becoming a legal matter. Time Magazine in 1976 summarized the story as follows:
Karen Ann Quinlan had been born of unknown parents in Pennsylvania (U.S.A.) and was
adopted by Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Quinlan when she was four (4) weeks old. The Quinlans
described Karen as a friendly, outgoing girl, a fine swimmer and skier, and one who sang in
their church choir. Karen’s friends in high school, from which she graduated in 1972,
described her as quiet but popular with the boys. Her employer, who discharged her because
of a company cutback in 1974, remembered her as a good hard-worker. In the last few
months of her active life, Karen, after losing her job, moved out of her parents’ home and into
employment and friendships unlike her previous life-style. She began experimenting with
drugs. Several friends described her as “an occasional marijuana user and frequent pill popper
who took ‘uppers’ and ‘downers’ to suit her moods” (Everett Koop, 1976).
On April 14th, 1975, apparently feeling depressed, she not only took some
tranquillizers but then went to a bar to celebrate her friend birthday. After drinking gin and
tonic, she began to nod out. Friends took Karen home and put her to bed, where she passed
out. It was realized that she was more than drunk. Attempts were made to revive her with
mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, after which an ambulance was called. She never regained
consciousness. It was concluded that drugs were probably responsible for Karen’s comatose
state. Karen was then presented as an emergency patient to the local community hospital,
where without much knowledge of what had happened before, the immediate resuscitative
measures, including the use of a respirator, were begun by the doctors. Karen had been in a
coma for over six months, her breathing maintained by artificial respiratory machine.
According to reports “she had shriveled into something scarcely human, she weighed only
sixty pounds, was unable to move a muscle, to speak, or to think. This was the picture
presented to the world through the news media when in September 1975, the doctors caring

14
for Karen refused Mr. Quinlan’s request to pull the electric plug from the respirator, thereby
terminating her life. Mr. Quinlan, who is a Roman Catholic, then sued for his child’s right to
die, putting it in his own religious terms: ‘In my own mind, I had already resolved this
spiritually through my prayers, and I had placed Karen’s body and soul into the gentle loving
hands of the Lord… It was resolved that we would turn the machine off” (Everett Koop,
1976).
A Superior Court Judge decided on 10th November 1975 that the doctors could not
disconnect the life-sustaining respirator from Karen Ann Quinlan’s body and allow her to die.
Following an appeal by Mr. & Mrs. Quinlan to a higher Court for permission to have the
respiration machine turned off as it was an extraordinary means of prolonging their
daughter’s life permission was granted (Brennan, N. et al., 1977:203).
Argument from the palliative care perspective which deals with the treatment of terminally
ill patients posits however that, once health can no longer be restored there is still much a
medical practitioner can do to relieve pain and suffering even if this may result in incidentally
shortening life. This may indeed be legally valid. Glanville Williams as quoted by Professor
Strauss in his book, summarizes the English law which, in our opinion, could be accepted as
a universal Law by stating that a medical practitioner’s conduct is not unlawful in the
following circumstances:

“(a) A patient is suffering from an incurable disease accompanied by excruciating pain.

The physician administers the minimum dosage of drugs necessary to make the pain
endurable knowing that such minimum dosage will probably also cause death.

(b) A patient is suffering from a painful and incurable disease and a drug is administered.
Because of the resistance consequent upon the administration of the drug steadily
increasing dosages have to be administered. This means that unless the patient dies
beforehand due to another cause, a point must be reached when the dosage becomes
legal.
(Strauss, 388 to 389)

(vi) Some Difficult Questions:

(a) Is Voluntary Euthanasia desirable or necessary?
It is most justifiable on the obligation to relieve suffering, and to show mercy.
However, it has been repeatedly shown that pain and distress in the period before dying can
almost always be effectively relieved given sufficient, but quite ordinary, resources. Where
relief is not obtained in our society it is usually because sufficient resources have not been
devoted to pre-terminal care, having been directed to other more dramatic worthy health
objective. It is always right to be merciful, but the method need not and should not, transgress
other moral goals (Vale, 1975:85).
(b) Is Voluntary Euthanasia practicable?

15
 No, because it is impossible to provide adequate safeguards for the patient or for
society. leaving aside the difficulties over insurance, legal status and inheritance, there are
three serious problems which override all others. First it must be admitted that the “1” who
might be deemed to need euthanasia years, when the paper might be deemed to need
euthanasia years, when the paper might recovered during illness. The real and common
problems of a patient’s confusion or depression would always make psychiatric assessment
mandatory, and impossibly hard to give under such emotional pressures. Secondly, medical
prognosis is also notoriously uncertain particularly at the time when suffering is at its worst,
that is, the preterminal illness when diagnosis may still be uncertain. Lastly, death is a thief
when families fell guilt, even without euthanasia. What sort of problems would ensue if this
guilt were compounded by their consideration, or support of mercy killing? (Vale, p.80)

(c) Is Voluntary Euthanasia right?

Moral decisions are not easy. That there is no self-evident answer in this case as is
witnessed by the number of clergy who oppose, or propose, euthanasia with transparent
integrity. Euthanasia is not murder, which requires a guilty rather than a merciful mind. Nor
is the ‘sanctity of life’ the obvious answer, since it has been upheld by many who took lives
freely for other purposes in past centuries. However, all theistic faiths (e.g. Islam and
Christianity) and most of their adherents are agreed that life has supreme value and that man
is answerable to God for his use of God-given life. The Christian Faith upholds the view that
man was made like God in some ways (in god’s image), that God exerts providence over life,
and that man must answer for his use of it. Mandates are given for life-taking in certain
extremes e.g. the just war, or capital punishment.
Consideration of the life of Jesus Christ world encourage us to apply healing and
mercy without invoking euthanasia (Vale, p.80).
(vii) Conclusion
It is imperative in this issue to distinguish between acute and terminal illness. The two
are distinct patho-physiological entities and what is appropriate to one may not be appropriate
to the other. Gastric tubes, intravenous infusions, antibiotics, respiration and cardiac
resuscitation are all supportive measures for use in acute or sub acute illness to assist a patient
through a critical period towards recovery of health. Generally, to use such measures in the
terminally ill, with no expectancy of their return to health, is inappropriate treatment and
therefore bad medicine. A doctor has a duty to sustain life where life is sustainable: he has no
duty – legal, moral or ethical – to prolong the distress of a dying patient. Quoting the World
Medical Association Declaration of Venice, of October 1983 the learned author at page 390
quotes the following resolution “The physician may relieve suffering of a terminally ill
patient by withholding treatment with the consent of the patient or his immediate family if
unable to express his will... The physician shall refrain from employing any extraordinary
means which would prove of no benefit to the patient”.
It is my considered opinion that the on both the legal, ethical and religious planes, and
other related matters, the Constitutional and natural right to life does accords man the right to
life though, it excludes the a duty to live, that is, the right to life is not an unqualified
obligation to continue living no matter what. People can waive their rights in these

16
circumstances as at when the meaning and purpose of life is diminished. It is thus not within
the rational competence of any mortal to legislate on such matters as are outside the limits of
human knowledge i.e “apparently reasonable” euthanasia legislation.

17
 References
Brennan, N. et al. (1977): The Moral Life; Dublin. Veritas Publications.
Declaration on Euthanasia: Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 26 th
1980.
Duncan, A.S. et al. (1977): (ed) Dictionary of Medical Ethics. London. Dorton, Longman and
Jodd Ltd.
Fowler, H.W. and Fowler, F.G. (eds): The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English.
Hardon, J.A. (SJ): The Catholic Catechism. London. A Geoffrey Chapman Book. Published
by Cassel and Colber, Macmillan Publishers Ltd., pp. 239-334.
Haring, B. Medical Ethics. Published by St. Paul Publications, slough, England, pp. 144-151.
Henry, C.F. (1978): (ed) Baker’s dictionary of Christian Ethics. Michigan. Baker book
House, U.S.A.
Johnson, F.Y.A. (1980): Euthanasia. Ghana. A booklet sponsored by the Department of
Health, National Catholic Secretariat, Accra.
Koop, E.C. (1976): The Right To Live: the Right to Die. Eastbourne, England. Coverdale
House Publishers Ltd.
LOBO, G.V: Current Problems in Medical Ethics. St. Paul Publications, pp. 60-71.
Omorotionmwan, Joseph: “Need for Modified Law on Euthanasia”. Nigerian Sunday Times,
May 17, 1981, p.5.
Roche (1978): Updating Courses in Moral Theology. Ghana. Publications from Tamale
Theological Commission, Vol. V, pp. 226-245.
South African Law Commission Report Project 86 Euthanasia and the Artificial Participation
of Life November 1998
Strauss, S. A, (1984) Doctor and Patient Law, 1984 edition published by J L van Schaik
Vale, J.A. (1975): (ed) Medicine and the Christian Mind. A Christian Medical Fellowship
Publication.
Within the Catholic Health Service: A Guide Health Workers. Published by Department of
Health, National Catholic Secretariat, Accra, Ghana.

18