The summary is from ‘Religious Perspectives on Human Suffering: Implications for Medicine and Bioethics’ written by J Relig Health that was published online on 14th February 2015. The paper sought to get clarification from the world’s major faith traditions on whether the medicine should be used to relieve pain, anxiety, sadness, uncertainty, and despair to patients.
The Jewish religion, suffering, is seen as a problem of ethics and response. The moral gesture of medicine to suffering is enriched the belief deeply rooted in aggadic and halachic tradition. Additionally, the healing act involves a direct encounter with the other person at the moral and existential level. This means the healer participates in the act of moral reversal and reciprocity. Furthermore, Jewish religion sees suffering as both an individual as well as a collective experience and therefore has a social and psychological dimension. Finally, Jewish people view medicine and science as a needed response to alleviate human suffering. The Roman Catholic view is that what is important for moral life s available to natural reason. There’s also the belief of the Kingdom of heaven and sharing in God’s life as a people’s final end. Humans suffering helps create awareness of some form of disharmony, could be within themselves, with others, or with the larger universe or the creator. The Roman Catholics, therefore, believe that pain should not be eliminated because if this is done, the person suffering loses the opportunity to repair what is broken within and around him. The Catholic belief in the reconciliation between humans and God through the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Buddhists believe that suffering does exist, and it is brought abought by some causes that suffering can be eliminated by doing the right things. Buddhism believes in three forms of suffering, namely the physical or emotional pain, the pain brought about by a change of fortunes, and the all-pervasive pain. They believe in preventing and relieving pain. The Evangelical Anglican perspective is that there’s no inherent value in suffering and that it is a result of a broken relationship between humans and God. Christ suffering is regarded as the solution for human suffering because it brought reconciliation between God and man.
Islam regards suffering as something that comes when permitted by God. The recognition of the omniscience nature of God urges Muslims to endure whatever afflictions that come their way. It also reinforces passiveness and patience in the face of suffering in the belief that it is ordained and temporary. Hindus, on the other hand, believe that one’s actions in earlier life affect their rebirth and their future events. Suffering can, therefore, be eliminated when one depletes the acts of a previous life; suffering is, therefore, inevitable. Palliative care may, therefore, be seen to delay and may sometimes prolong or intensify the inevitable.
In conclusion, pain and suffering are seen to be inevitable in these major faith traditions. Additionally, pain is seen as a manifestation of decline and disease and not simply as a result of pathology. The faith traditions are more concerned with the moral responsibility for suffering that simply the causes. Finally, none of them claim that pain has intrinsic value in humans.