Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Assisted Suicide
what is the Buddhist perspective on the issue of assisted suicide? For example pulling the plug on someone who is declared brain dead
Also what is the perspective on suicide in general?
Also what is the perspective on suicide in general?
0
Comments
I have heard that suicide is viewed negatively as it is taking a life.
Mercy killing is not something I am sure about from an 'official' perspective, but since Buddhism doesn't have a pope, I don't know that there is an official stance.
Myself I am fine with it if the person is suffering and there is no realistic way to end the suffering other than death. If the killing is motivated by genuine compassion after consultation with a qualified physician then I think it is educated, informed compassion.
Assisted suicide is a choice an individual makes for him or herself. In the United States, there are 34 states have statutes explicitly criminalizing assisted suicide. Nine states criminalize assisted suicide through common law. Four states have abolished the common law of crimes and do not have statutes criminalizing assisted suicide. In Virginia, there is no clear case law on assisted suicide, nor is there is a statute criminalizing it, although there is a statute which imposes civil sanctions on persons assisting in a suicide. Only the states of Oregon and Washington permit physician-assisted suicide.
From a Buddhist perspective, and as an ICU nurse who has been directly involved in many cases of withdrawing support from patients who are beyond all realistic hope of recovery, I see nothing whatever wrong with it. It is not the same as taking a life. It is allowing natural death to take place with dignity and (hopefully) peace. In another place or another time, the person would likely not have lived as long as they did in the ICU with all the drugs and machines. In the vast majority of cases patients live a mater of minutes to hours after support is withdrawn, but of course there are always exceptions. And as we know, everyone dies. Whether it's this afternoon or two weeks, or two months from now - only possible with the assistance of drugs and/or machines, what's the difference? Usually it's not the patient's condition nor what's necessarily best for the patient that dictates whether support is withdrawn later rather than sooner, it's the readiness and willingness of the family to come to grips with the situation and say goodbye. It's never easy though.
Mtns
What's the Buddhist position on positions?
In my view, there's no right or wrong answer even though the Buddha himself was clear about where he stood on these issues. From the Buddhist perspective, to kill, to assist in killing or to even speak in favour of killing violates the spirit of the first precept. For example, the Vinita Vatthu, which documents various cases related to the major rules in the Vinaya and gives verdicts as to what penalty, if any, they entail, includes two explicit cases, one involving euthanasia and one involving capital punishment:
Recommending means of capital punishment. Again from the Vinita Vatthu: A bhikkhu advises an executioner to kill his victims mercifully with a single blow, rather than torturing them. The executioner follows his advice, and the bhikkhu incurs a parajika. This judgment indicates that a bhikkhu should not involve himself in matters of this sort, no matter how humane his intentions. According to the Vinita Vatthu, if the executioner says that he will not follow the bhikkhu's advice and then kills his victims as he pleases, the bhikkhu incurs no penalty. The Commentary adds that if the executioner tries to follow the bhikkhu's advice and yet needs more than one blow to do the job, the bhikkhu incurs a thullaccaya. As we have mentioned, though, the best course is to leave matters of this sort to the laity" (BMC 1.4).
While these particular rules apply explicitly to monks, the first precept is the same for lay followers, so it's reasonable to assume that all Buddhists should refrain from such actions as much as possible because the weight of such kamma is so heavy. That being said, the precept itself is only a guideline for our protection, not a commandment that's written in stone. It's always up to the individual to weigh all options and their potential consequences before performing any action; and in the end, sometimes our decisions depend more on what we feel than on what we are told is the 'right' thing to do.
There are cases in the Pali Canon where monks committed suicide, whether due to an incurable illness and unbearable pain, aversion and disgust with the body, etc., but it's made clear that only those who are free from greed, hatred and delusion are blameless in such actions, i.e., there's only fault when one "gives up this body and seizes another" (MN 144). When it comes to our practical day-to-day lives, however, we are not always capable of being as stoic as we may wish to be, and enduring all of the difficult circumstances that life has to throw at us is not always possible.
Things like incurable illnesses that cause great amounts of pain can even be unbearable for arahants, let alone the average individual, and it's absurd to expect that everyone should live up to some idealized standard of morality that's arbitrarily placed upon human existence or exhibit superhuman endurance for the sake of piety.