The Value of Life, Abortion and Euthanasia

Another important idea is hukam, God’s will or order. Many Sikhs oppose deliberately interrupting God-given natural processes, including the development of life and the timing of death. This does not mean rejecting medicine: caring for someone and treating illness are different from deliberately ending their life.

Sikh attitudes also draw on sewa, selfless service. Protecting life involves practical help, not merely refusing to end it. Someone who is seriously ill needs care, companionship and relief from suffering. The Guru Granth Sahib does not directly set out rules on modern abortion and euthanasia, so Sikhs apply broader teachings to these questions.

Abortion: applying protection of life to pregnancy

Abortion deliberately ends a pregnancy. Many Sikhs oppose it because they regard developing life as God-given. Ahimsa supports protecting that life, while belief in hukam gives a reason not to interfere deliberately with its development.

The Gurus’ condemnation of infanticide, the killing of babies after birth, reinforces the importance of protecting vulnerable human life. Abortion and infanticide are nevertheless different acts: a condemnation of killing a baby after birth is not a direct scriptural ruling on every circumstance of abortion.

Sikhs can differ over difficult cases. Where continuing a pregnancy threatens the mother’s life, protecting life becomes a conflict between responsibilities rather than a simple choice between protection and harm. Some Sikhs accept abortion in this situation. Others approach difficult decisions through consultation involving the woman, her family, medical professionals and religious guidance.

Sex-selective abortion is strongly condemned by Sikh authorities. The Akal Takht has acted against it. A cultural preference for sons should therefore not be confused with Sikh religious teaching.

An argument supporting access to abortion emphasises the woman’s autonomy and the consequences of continuing the pregnancy. A Sikh objection is that the developing life also deserves protection: the decision concerns more than the wishes of one individual. A reasoned judgement must explain how these competing interests should be weighed, especially when the mother’s life is at risk.

Euthanasia: care without deliberately ending life

Euthanasia means deliberately ending someone’s life to relieve suffering. Many Sikhs oppose it because life is God’s gift and its ending belongs within hukam. Ahimsa also provides a reason against deliberately causing death, even when the intention is compassionate.

The alternative is not to abandon the patient. Sewa supports palliative care and hospice work: relieving pain, providing comfort and supporting the person and their family. This approach aims to reduce suffering without making death the means of doing so.

Withdrawing treatment that has become futile is a different question. It can allow the dying process to take its course rather than deliberately cause death. Many Sikhs accept this distinction; belief in protecting life need not require prolonging dying through treatment that no longer benefits the patient.

Supporters of voluntary euthanasia argue that a person experiencing unbearable suffering should be able to choose death. Opponents reply that compassion should lead to better care rather than intentional killing. The difficult issue is whether care can adequately relieve the suffering in a particular case, and whether personal choice can justify deliberately ending a God-given life.

Peter Singer: why animal suffering matters

Non-religious views do not all assign the same value to human and animal life. Some people give humans greater importance because of human reasoning, self-awareness and complex relationships. Others question whether these differences justify the ways people use animals.

The Humanist philosopher Peter Singer challenges speciesism: favouring humans simply because they belong to our own species. He compares this with other forms of prejudice because species membership alone does not explain why another being’s interests should count for less.

For Singer, sentience is central. A being that can experience pain and pleasure has interests that deserve consideration. An animal does not need to speak like a human for its suffering to matter. Self-awareness can also be relevant, but intelligence alone is not the test of whether suffering deserves concern.

For example, an argument defending animal experimentation might point to its potential to save human lives. Singer’s approach requires the animal’s pain to be taken seriously too, rather than dismissed merely because the animal is not human. Similar reasoning challenges causing animal suffering for food or clothing.

This does not mean that every creature must receive identical treatment. It means that comparable interests should not be discounted simply because they belong to another species. The strength of this approach is its clear reason for opposing unnecessary suffering. A challenge is deciding how to weigh conflicting interests when benefiting one being harms another. Non-religious people may therefore agree that animals matter while disagreeing about particular uses of them.

Humanists and Dignity in Dying

Humanist ethics focuses on wellbeing in this life, using reason and compassion rather than a belief that God determines when life must end. Many Humanists support assisted dying because they value autonomy and wish to reduce suffering. They do not regard prolonging life as necessarily beneficial regardless of the person’s circumstances or wishes.

Dignity in Dying developed from the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society, founded in 1935. The movement campaigns for assisted dying for terminally ill people and has a long association with Humanist supporters. It is not exclusively Humanist, and its campaigning should not be treated as support for ending any life judged difficult or unhappy.

Supporters argue that an informed, voluntary choice can preserve dignity and give a dying person greater control. The Humanist writer Terry Pratchett expressed this emphasis as ‘My life, my death, my choice.’ Knowing that a choice is available may itself provide reassurance.

Critics worry that vulnerable people could feel pressure to die because they fear being a burden, or that a request might reflect inadequate care rather than a genuinely free choice. Supporters therefore argue for safeguards to establish that the person’s wish is voluntary and informed and to prevent abuse. The central disagreement is whether safeguards can adequately protect vulnerable people while respecting individual choice.

Reaching a justified judgement

A strong evaluation identifies both shared concerns and genuine disagreements. Sikh opponents of euthanasia and Humanist supporters of assisted dying can both value life and want suffering relieved. The main difference concerns whether life’s God-given status places limits on personal choice.

You might conclude that protecting vulnerable people and providing good palliative care should take priority. Alternatively, you might argue that a voluntary choice should be respected when suffering cannot be adequately relieved, provided effective safeguards are possible. Either conclusion needs reasons and an answer to the strongest objection. Likewise, evaluating Singer requires deciding whether human abilities justify different treatment without making animal suffering morally insignificant.

• Foundations: sanctity of life, ahimsa, hukam and sewa.
• Abortion: generally opposed as harming developing life and interfering with God-given processes; some accept it when the mother’s life is at risk.
• Infanticide: condemned by the Gurus. Distinguish it from abortion.
• Sex-selective abortion: strongly condemned by Sikh authorities.
• Euthanasia: generally opposed; respond to suffering through care and pain relief.
• Futile treatment: withdrawing it can be distinguished from deliberately causing death.
• Modern decisions are derived from broader teachings, not direct scriptural rules on these procedures.

Singer and animal life

• Speciesism: favouring humans merely because they are human.
• Sentience: capacity for pain and pleasure; makes a being’s suffering morally significant.
• Consider animal interests in food, clothing and experimentation.
• Equal consideration does not require identical treatment.

Humanists and assisted dying

• Main reasons: autonomy, compassion, dignity and reducing suffering.
• Dignity in Dying: developed from the society founded in 1935; campaigns for assisted dying for terminally ill people.
• Supporters emphasise voluntary choice and safeguards.
• Critics emphasise pressure on vulnerable people, possible abuse and inadequate care.

Evaluation focus

Weigh protection of life against autonomy and relief of suffering. Explain whether exceptions or safeguards answer the strongest objections.