Abstract
A random sample of Cleveland clergy was asked to assess 1) the terminal patient's views on death, 2) the desires of some terminally ill patients to find an easy and dignified death, and 3) the role the physician ought to play in treating terminal patients. Protestant clergy more than their Catholic counterparts are substantially in favor of 1) disclosure of terminal illness, 2) allowing an easy death for the terminal patient at his request, and 3) facilitating the role of the physicians in cases of terminal illness. Fundamentalist Protestants are less approving than liberal Protestants. Clerics who saw their role extend beyond man's spiritual need approve of the physician's disclosure of terminal illness and his cooperation with patients who request with-holding or terminating medical treatment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brown, N.; Bulger, R.; Laws, H.; and Thompson, D., “The Preservation of Life,”J. Am. Med. Assoc., 1970,211, 76–81.
Bok, S., “Euthanasia and the Care of the Dying,”BioScience, 1973,23, 461–466.
Hendin, D.,Death as a Fact of Life. New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 1973, p. 80. Oken, D., “Wat to Tell Cancer Patients,”J. Am. Med. Assoc., 1961,175, 1120–1128.
Fletcher, J.: “The Patient's Right to Die,” In Downing, A. B., ed.,Euthanasia and the Right to Death, London, Peter Owen Limited, 1970, p. 64. See also, Meyers, D. W.,The Human Body and the Law. A Medico-legal Study. Chicago, Aldne Publishing Company, 1970, p. 141.
Ramsey, P.,The Patient as Person: Explorations in Medical Ethics. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1970, p. 143.
Freeman, H.: Brim, O. G., Jr.; and Williams, G., “New Dimensions of Dying,” In Brim, O. G., Jr.; Freeman, H. E.; Levine, S.; and Scotch, N. A.; eds.The Dying Patient. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1970, p. xviii. See also the following: Glaser, B., G., and Strauss. A. L.,Time for Dying. Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company, 1968, pp. 3–4; Maguire, D. C.; “Death by Chance, Death by Choice,”Atlantic Montly, 1974,233, 3, pp. 57–65; and Weisman, A. D.,On Dying and Denying. A Psychiatric Study of Terminality. New York, Behavioral Publications, 1972, p. ix.
Lasagna, L.,Life, Death, and the Doctor. New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1968, p. 229.
Although the wordeuthanasia has the connotation of “mercy killing,” it really is from a Greek term that means “good,” “easy,” or “happy” death. The literature makes strong distinction between active and passive euthanasia. The first (active) involves a direct act that induces death, the prescription of a lethal dose, of some substance. The second (passive) involves an indirect act that permits death, the discontinuance of life-supporting substance. This distinction is roughly equivalent to the differences somehow drawn between euthanasia. by omission and euthanasia by commission. One other line of distinction is between voluntary and involuntary practices. Most of the discussion in this paper addresses the subject of passive euthanasia, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Crane, D. “Physicians' Attitudes Toward the Treatment of Critically Ill Patients,”BioScience, 1973,23, 471–474. See also: Fletcher, G. P., “Prolonging Life: Some Legal Considerations.” InEuthanasia and the Right to Death, op. cit. London, Peter Owen Limited, 1970, pp. 75–84; Manning, B., “Legal and Policy Issues in the Allocation of Death.” InThe Dying Patients, op. cit. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1970, p. 158. St. John-Stevas, N., “Law and the Moral Consensus.” In Labby, D. H.: Shils, E.; St. John-Stevas, N.; Ramsey, P.; Medawar, P. B.; Beecher, H. K.; Kaplan, A., eds.Life or Death: Ethics and Options. Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1968, p. 55.
Rabin, D. L., with Rabin, L. H., “Consequences of Death for Physicians, Nurses, and Hospitals.” InThe Dying Patient,, p. 168, and Ramsey, P.,The Patient as Person: Explorations in Medical Ethics. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1970, p. 118. In the last few years the American Medical Association and the American Bar Association established committees to study the issue of “Death with Dignity,” commonly referred to as euthanasia, and to asses its biomedical and legal implications. Each committee was entrusted with soliciting communications from other professions.
Levine, S., and Scotch, N. A., “Dying as an Emerging Social Problem,” InThe Dying Patient,, p. 221.
The State of California instituted the “living will” legislation in 1976. Similar legislation is instituted in other states. Also, hearings were held on the subject of death with dignity, Special Committee on Aging, United States Senate, 1969.
The medical profession attempts to redefine death according to the state of medical knowledge and practice. A legal definition of death, however, rermains a problem.
Fletcher, G., “Prolonging Life: Some Legal Considerations.” InEuthanasia and the Right to Death,, pp. 75–84.
, p. 65.
Flew, A., “The Principle of Euthanasia.” InEuthanasia and the Right to Death,, p. 36.
Kamisar, Y., “Euthanasia legislation: Some Non-religious Objections,”loc. cit., p. 85.
, pp. 472–473. Brown et al.,op. cit., p. 54.
, pp. 55–56. Maguire,op. cit. Maguire, D. C.; “Death by Chance, Death by Choice,”Atlantic Montly, 1974,233, 3, p. 54.
Fletcher, G. P., “Prolonging Life: Some Legal Considerations.” InEuthanasia and the Right to Death,, pp. 71–72. Meyers,op. cit., Meyers, D. W.,The Human Body and the Law. A Medico-legal Study. Chicago, Aldne Publishing Company, 1970, p. 92, and Williams, G., “Euthanasia Legislation: A Rejoinder to the Non-Religious Objections.” InEuthanasia and the Right to Death, op. cit. London, Peter Owen Limited, 1970, p. 135.
Brown et al.,, 79–81.
Freeman et al.,, p. xxiv, and Meyers,op. cit. Meyers, D. W.,The Human Body and the Law. A Medico-legal Study. Chicago, Aldne Publishing Company, 1970, p. 141.
St. John-Stevas,, p. 52.
Glaser, R. J., “Innovations and Herioic Acts in Prolonging Life.” InThe Dying Patient,, pp. 102–128.
Oken,, p. 1125. Glaser,op. cit. “Innovations and Herioic Acts in Prolonging Life.” InThe Dying Patient, Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company, 1968, p. 119.
Meyers, p. 141, St. John-Stevas,op. cit., Law and the Moral Consensus.” In Labby, D. H.; Shils, E.; St. John-Stevas, N.; Ramsey, p.; Medawar, P. B.; Beecher, H. K.; Kaplan, A., eds,Life or Death: Ethics and Options. Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1968, p. 52.
Fletcher, G., “Prolonging Life: Some Legal Considerations.” InEuthanasia and the Right to Death,, p. 189, and Hinton, J.,Dying. Baltimore, Penguin Books Ltd., 1967, pp. 127–128.
Hinton,, p. 129.
Glaser,, pp. 74–76; Brown et al.,op. cit., p. 77; and Weisman,op. cit., On Dying and Denying. A Psychiatric Study of Terminality. New York, Behavioral Publications, 1972, p. ix.
Note that this item includedboth the disclosure of terminal illness and the disclosure of the right to passive euthanasia.
Lasagna, L.,, p. 230.
Hendin, D.,, p. 96.
Meyers, D. W.,, p. 140.
Ettinger, R.,The Prospect of Immortality. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday and Company, 1964, p. 82; Hendin,op. cit. Hendin, D.,Death as a Fact of Life. New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 1973, p. 95
Nagi, M. H., et al., “Attitudes of Catholic and Protestant Clergy Toward Euthanasia,”Omega, 1977–78,8, 153–164.
Hendin, D., p. 95.
Nagi, M. H., et al., “Attitudes of Catholics and Protestant Clergy Toward Euthanasia and Abortion,” paper presented at American Sociological Association Meetings, New York, August, 1980.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by the office of Research Development at Bowling Green State University and the College of Arts and Sciences.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nagi, M.H., Lazerine, N.G. & Pugh, M.D. Euthanasia, the terminal patient, and the physician's role. J Relig Health 20, 186–200 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01561180
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01561180