Euthanasia

What is at stake in euthanasia?

Euthanasia means deliberately ending another person’s life to relieve suffering. The ethical question is whether ending life can ever be an acceptable way to help someone whose suffering has become unbearable. This brings two important concerns into tension: protecting human life and showing compassion to a suffering person.

Voluntary euthanasia takes place at the person’s request. Non-voluntary euthanasia concerns someone who cannot give consent. Consent matters because a freely chosen death raises different questions from a decision made on someone else’s behalf.

Euthanasia is also different from assisted suicide. In euthanasia, another person performs the act that ends life; in assisted suicide, someone provides assistance but the person themselves performs the final act. Arguments about assisted dying often address similar questions about choice, suffering and protecting vulnerable people, but these terms are not interchangeable.

Why Sikhs place a high value on life

Sikhs believe that life is a gift from Waheguru, God. Each human being has an atma, or soul, understood as a divine spark. Human worth therefore does not depend on being healthy, independent or free from disability. This supports the sanctity of life: the belief that life is sacred and should be protected.

The Guru Granth Sahib teaches that life comes from Waheguru (921). Most Sikhs believe that birth and death should remain in Waheguru’s hands (376). Acceptance of hukam, divine will or order, therefore provides a reason not to deliberately hasten death.

Beliefs about karma and rebirth can reinforce this position. Actions have spiritual consequences, and suffering can form part of a person’s karmic journey and spiritual growth. Euthanasia could interrupt that journey towards mukti, liberation from rebirth. However, this is not a reason to neglect someone in pain: Sikh teachings also demand compassionate care.

Compassion means caring for the suffering

Daya, compassion, requires Sikhs to take suffering seriously. Seva, selfless service, turns that concern into action: caring for someone, relieving pain and supporting them rather than abandoning them.

These teachings explain Sikh support for palliative care and hospice care. Palliative care aims to relieve pain and other distressing symptoms. Hospice care supports people approaching the end of life, addressing emotional, social and spiritual needs as well as physical discomfort. It also supports families. Care can be provided at home or in a hospice or another care setting. Its purpose is to help someone live as comfortably and meaningfully as possible, not deliberately to bring about death.

For many Sikhs, this approach brings sanctity of life and compassion together. The choice is not simply between ending life and leaving someone to suffer: active care can protect life while relieving suffering. Nevertheless, an evaluation must still consider the argument that some suffering may remain intolerable despite good care.

Lord Indarjit Singh: compassion alongside wider responsibility

In the House of Lords debate on assisted dying on 12 December 2013, Lord Indarjit Singh, known in Parliament as Lord Singh of Wimbledon, argued that Sikhs should cherish and preserve life wherever possible while also recognising “compassion, dignity and care for the suffering”. He described these commitments as “not necessarily incompatible”. His speech considered whether the law should change to permit assistance in ending life.

He questioned an argument based too narrowly on autonomy, the freedom to make decisions about one’s own life. A decision to end life also affects friends, relatives, carers and wider society. He was concerned that emphasising individual choice alone could weaken society’s respect for life and change the ethos of medical care.

Lord Singh also identified practical risks. A person’s feelings about whether life is worth living can change after a low point. Relatives or carers might unintentionally make someone feel like a burden, while others might have financial motives for encouraging death. What appears to be a free choice could therefore be shaped by pressure.

He pointed to the Paralympics as an example showing that people with severe disabilities can live meaningful lives. He also emphasised advances in treatment and palliative care: a situation that seems hopeless may not remain so. These arguments support improving care rather than assuming that illness or dependence makes life no longer worth living.

His conclusion was qualified. He acknowledged that life can become intolerable and that there is an argument for helping someone end it in strictly controlled circumstances. Nevertheless, he judged that the danger of a slippery slope towards trivialising life outweighed that argument. He concluded: “I feel, on balance, that we should leave the law as it is.” This was his judgement about the law at the time of the speech, not a rejection of compassion for those seeking help.

Non-religious arguments for and against

An atheist does not believe in God, so the claim that only Waheguru may determine death will not provide the same reason for opposing euthanasia. However, atheism alone does not imply support for it. An atheist may strongly value human life and oppose euthanasia because of risks to vulnerable people.

A Humanist approach uses reason, evidence and empathy to assess human wellbeing. Richard Norman, writing from a Humanist perspective, argues that compassion provides a reason to help someone who is terminally ill, suffering unbearably and requesting help to die. Supporters may argue that respecting life includes respecting the person whose life it is, especially when their request is informed, enduring and genuinely their own.

This is a quality-of-life argument: the person’s experience of suffering and their own judgement matter, not simply the continuation of biological life. It does not mean that sick or disabled lives are automatically less valuable.

Norman also argues that laws should rest on broadly shared human values rather than a religious belief that not everyone accepts. Permitting assisted dying would not itself require someone who objects on religious grounds to choose it.

Non-religious objections can nevertheless resemble Lord Singh’s concerns. People may experience pressure to die, decisions may reflect temporary despair, and legal changes might make sick or disabled people feel less secure. Norman distinguishes whether assisted dying is acceptable in principle from whether it can operate safely in practice. The latter question requires evidence about safeguards and the experience of places where it is permitted, rather than simply assuming either that abuse is inevitable or that safeguards will always work.

Applying situation ethics

Situation ethics judges an action in its particular circumstances by the most loving outcome, rather than applying an absolute prohibition regardless of the situation. Love is its governing principle: other moral rules are not treated as absolute. This approach can be applied to arguments about euthanasia, but it does not automatically support ending life.

For example, suppose a terminally ill person makes a persistent, informed request for help to die because their suffering remains unbearable. A situation-ethics argument might favour helping them if that is judged the most loving response. It would not follow that euthanasia is right in every case. If a request results from pressure, loneliness or suffering that care could relieve, protecting and supporting the person might be the more loving action.

A Sikh response can agree that the circumstances and compassion matter while disputing the conclusion. Daya may require better pain relief, companionship and hospice care rather than intentionally ending life. Lord Singh’s argument also challenges an assessment that considers only immediate suffering and overlooks effects on other people.

Reaching a justified judgement

The central disagreement is often not whether compassion matters, but what compassion requires. Supporters may prioritise an informed choice and relief from unbearable suffering. Opponents may argue that protecting vulnerable people and preserving respect for life require a different response.

A justified conclusion should weigh both. If you oppose euthanasia, explain why hospice care and protection from pressure outweigh the autonomy argument, while acknowledging the difficulty of persistent suffering. If you support it in limited circumstances, explain why autonomy and compassion outweigh the objections, and address whether safeguards can make the choice genuinely free. Either conclusion needs reasons, not merely a statement of preference.