Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Mercy Killing?

2»

Comments

  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    "The term "animal languages" is often used for non-human systems of communication. Linguists and semioticians do not consider these to be true "language""

    Wikipedia is on my side :)
    Considering linguists and semioticians, or anyone else don't understand animal communication that well, then of course they would say that its not a true language.
    However, it must presumably be a true language for the animals that use it to communicate.

    Metta to all sentient beigns

  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited April 2011
    A nice article on animals and empathy.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-animals-feel-empathy

    also a nice wiki article taken from

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

    "Some studies of animal behavior claim that empathy is not restricted to humans as the definition implies. Examples include dolphins saving humans from drowning or from shark attacks, and a multitude of behaviors observed in primates, both in captivity and in the wild. (See, for instance, Frans de Waal's The Ape and the Sushi Master.) Rodents have been shown to demonstrate empathy for cagemates (but not strangers) in pain. Furthermore, humans can empathize with animals; as such, empathy is thought to be a driving psychological force behind the animal rights movement."

    Metta to all sentient beings
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    No, it's not opinion, it's tried and tested knowledge.
    Animals work very much on the perception of what is happening right now.
    (in fact, we could do to take a leaf out of their book when it comes to 'living in the moment'!) Animals do not have the ability to rationalise reasons for distress or heightened tension. They cannot say "she is angry because I have soiled the capet" they only work on "she is experiencing high stress levels" but they do not associate it with soiling the carpet because while to the mistress this is bad behaviour, to the animal it's for a different reason entirely.

    Animals do not function on spite, vindictiveness or malice.
    Animals function on behavioural patterns and instinct.
    Whatever they do, they do for a reason, as a manifestation of presence, or a response to a stimulus.

    Zidangus, I've made a study of such matters, professionally. Let me please assure you, I do not speak from assumption or opinion, I promise you.
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited April 2011
    Ok you say it is not your opinion its "tried and tested knowledge", then please back this statement up with proof that this is the case for all animals. It will be really appreciated, because I assumed it would be impossible to actually know for sure what an animal thinks or feels. But you are suggesting otherwise, so prove me wrong, show me conclusive proof, share the results of your studies. I will be happy to admit I am wrong if you can prove beyond doubt that I am.

    Metta to all sentient beings
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited April 2011
    Some research suggests that animals do know the difference between right and wrong.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

    My perspective is we do not know for sure, but lets give animals the benefit of the doubt, that they have emotions and may have the ability to understand more than a lot of people would like to admit.

    Metta to all sentient beings

  • RicRic

    This is your opinion. As I said you and no one else can know this for sure.

    Metta to all sentient beings

    Well...I mean welcome to real life. We can never know things for sure. So you think a bird can conceptualize death ? You think a bird understand the statement "We all die eventually" ?
  • RicRic
    Federica,

    I think we again fall in the pitfalls of words. I think common usage of the term language, denotes complex systems of communication that can express abstract thinking. I mean its a commonly expressed that the difference between the animals and humans is language. It gives us the ability to conceptualize.

    But yea, there is the term animal language, but I see it more as animal communication. Meaning it doesnt offer tools to understand abstract ideas but does offer the ability to communicate.
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited April 2011


    Well...I mean welcome to real life. We can never know things for sure. So you think a bird can conceptualize death ? You think a bird understand the statement "We all die eventually" ?
    I don't now, and neither do you. Until you can show me conclusive evidence to support your stance I will have the attitude that an animal deserves the benefit of the doubt, I mean your talking about making a decision about if your going to take into your own hands the immediate fate of another beings life or death here, its not a trivial thing to do, all I am saying is that if your not sure what the animal wants then you don't have the right to make that decision for them.

    Metta to all sentient beings

  • sndymornsndymorn Veteran


    Well...I mean welcome to real life. We can never know things for sure. So you think a bird can conceptualize death ? You think a bird understand the statement "We all die eventually" ?
    I don't now, and neither do you. Until you can show me conclusive evidence to support your stance I will have the attitude that an animal deserves the benefit of the doubt, I mean your talking about making a decision about if your going to take into your own hands the immediate fate of another beings life or death here, its not a trivial thing to do, all I am saying is that if your not sure what the animal wants then you don't have the right to make that decision for them.

    Metta to all sentient beings

    Therefore, since the only being's opinion we can be sure of is man, mercy killing should only be used for us.
    Do you support mercy killing in this instance? For man I mean?
    I am not trying to put you on the spot. I do , under the right conditions support mercy killing of humans.
    But I also trust the OP's instinct and his description of of the event as reason enough to allow an animal the same courtesy. If I, a confirmed(?) sentient,won't act for these creatures for some vague fear of karmic retribution, I would would feel spiritually ungenerous.
  • RicRic


    Well...I mean welcome to real life. We can never know things for sure. So you think a bird can conceptualize death ? You think a bird understand the statement "We all die eventually" ?
    I don't now, and neither do you. Until you can show me conclusive evidence to support your stance I will have the attitude that an animal deserves the benefit of the doubt, I mean your talking about making a decision about if your going to take into your own hands the immediate fate of another beings life or death here, its not a trivial thing to do, all I am saying is that if your not sure what the animal wants then you don't have the right to make that decision for them.

    Metta to all sentient beings

    Therefore, since the only being's opinion we can be sure of is man, mercy killing should only be used for us.
    Do you support mercy killing in this instance? For man I mean?
    I am not trying to put you on the spot. I do , under the right conditions support mercy killing of humans.
    But I also trust the OP's instinct and his description of of the event as reason enough to allow an animal the same courtesy. If I, a confirmed(?) sentient,won't act for these creatures for some vague fear of karmic retribution, I would would feel spiritually ungenerous.
    Well I mean we cant be sure of anything in the broadest sense. I cant be 100% sure the person who claims my real mother is really my real mother....but its pretty likely.

    So I take the fact that you need a complex language to understand the eventuality of death and that animals operate by instinct and behavioral xx(<-cant remember the word right now). Based on that an animal cant even understand the question "Would you rather die now or die slowly?". So to me, the obvious conclusion is to kill it rather than let it die slowly.

    btw I kill spiders all the time in my house...and I feel no remorse.
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran

    Therefore, since the only being's opinion we can be sure of is man, mercy killing should only be used for us.
    Do you support mercy killing in this instance? For man I mean?
    I am not trying to put you on the spot. I do , under the right conditions support mercy killing of humans.
    But I also trust the OP's instinct and his description of of the event as reason enough to allow an animal the same courtesy. If I, a confirmed(?) sentient,won't act for these creatures for some vague fear of karmic retribution, I would would feel spiritually ungenerous.
    Well I don't agree with mercy killing fullstop. Moreover, how can it even be called mercy if you have no idea if the animal wants to die right there and then. A person can convince themself that they are doing the right thing but it doesn't mean it is the right thing.

    Regarding so called mercy killing for humans, ultimately a human is going to do what they want, in a free society a person has a choice to decide their own fate with regards to ending their life or not, as in this particular case the animal had no such option as this decision was taken regardless of if the animals wanted to survive or die.


    Metta to all sentient beings

  • son_of_dhammason_of_dhamma
    As always, the real reason for this question is the misunderstanding of the purpose of the first precept. The bottom is, there is no point in following the Buddha's teachings if you terminate a being's life. It's not all about the kamma, it's about your mental development, and the cultivation of the loving-kindness, compassion, and altruistic joy.
    As for these absurd questions of defining death and so forth, the Buddha explained exactly what he meant by "killing". If there is a sentient being, knowledge of its life, the intention to kill it, effort for cessation, and consequent cessation of life, then the precept of killing has been violated. I cannot presently imagine a situation in which you could remove someone from life support without the intention of killing them. You cannot blame it on mercy, the fact is you're ending their life with volitional formation as your precursor. If you removed the life support to save someone else, then you are not killing. If you remove it because they told you to do it and you honestly don't have the intention for them to die, then you are not killing. If you break a bird's neck premeditatedly, then you are killing--all the requisites are present. You can excuse yourself by accepting the bad kamma, however a true refugee of the Buddha does not make such excuses. A refuged follower of the Dhamma accepts that they are not a god who can take the pain of another being into their midst. Let the people kill those in pain, but the true seekers of the light see a dieing bird, a dieing mother, for what they are; a dieing bird and a dieing mother, who you can help or you can kill.
  • son_of_dhammason_of_dhamma


    Therefore, since the only being's opinion we can be sure of is man, mercy killing should only be used for us.
    Do you support mercy killing in this instance? For man I mean?
    I am not trying to put you on the spot. I do , under the right conditions support mercy killing of humans.
    But I also trust the OP's instinct and his description of of the event as reason enough to allow an animal the same courtesy. If I, a confirmed(?) sentient,won't act for these creatures for some vague fear of karmic retribution, I would would feel spiritually ungenerous.
    And yet the Buddha did not support it. Many people support killing, but if a "Buddhist" supports killing though the Buddha did not, then what does it mean to be "Buddhist"? Is it just a name tag you put on while you're at work, and remove whenever you find a friend dieing?
    The Buddha did not encourage the fear of kammic retribution, but as always he had the spiritual practice in mind. This is apparent when we recall the Buddha permitting the suicide of arahants, or Enlightened beings, who have completed the spiritual life and have nothing more to do, they have no reason so burden others with their sicknesses.
  • hermitwinhermitwin Veteran
    Its not your job to end other being's suffering.
  • fivebellsfivebells Veteran
    ...we could do to take a leaf out of their book when it comes to 'living in the moment'!
    Samsara arising from instinct and ignorance is called "animal realm" samsara for a reason, though.
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran


    Well I mean we cant be sure of anything in the broadest sense. I cant be 100% sure the person who claims my real mother is really my real mother....but its pretty likely.
    This is not really a fair or relevant comparison.


    So I take the fact that you need a complex language to understand the eventuality of death and that animals operate by instinct and behavioral xx(
    Yes and your missing my point, humans do not know how complex animal communication is, so your presuming that they don't have a complex language to understand the eventuality of death. So this is your opinion, which as far as I can see is not backed up by any substantial evidence. If there is please share it.
    Anyway its your opinion and I respect it.
    My opinion is that we don't know what exactly animals communicate about, so I prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt, and presume that they do not wish for me to end their life when they are in pain or suffering, it just not my right to decide that they want to die.

    btw I kill spiders all the time in my house...and I feel no remorse.
    That sounds a nice thing to do :hrm:
  • RicRic
    Zid,

    I also see your point and I respect that. I think we can both agree that the OPs intention was good and that counts for something.
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    To generate an interesting discussion and see what opinions would turn up? This has been interesting. Shall we kick it up a notch, and ask, what about "assisted suicide" for humans? What about pulling the plug when someone is surviving only by machines, and is in a coma? How do we define "death"?

    OK, well...maybe not.
    my mother was the bookkeeper for a old folk's home for several years. after that experience, she begged me that if she were ever in this situation, that i would pull the plug and end her suffering.
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    Zid,

    I also see your point and I respect that. I think we can both agree that the OPs intention was good and that counts for something.
    Agreed

    Metta to all sentient beings
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran


    my mother was the bookkeeper for a old folk's home for several years. after that experience, she begged me that if she were ever in this situation, that i would pull the plug and end her suffering.
    For me, I would not ask anyone to do such a thing, as I don't think it is fair on a person to ask them to do such a thing. just my opinion anyway.

    Metta to all sentient beings

  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran


    my mother was the bookkeeper for a old folk's home for several years. after that experience, she begged me that if she were ever in this situation, that i would pull the plug and end her suffering.
    For me, I would not ask anyone to do such a thing, as I don't think it is fair on a person to ask them to do such a thing. just my opinion anyway.

    Metta to all sentient beings

    why needlessly prolong her suffering? a person can exist for a long time on machines alone. my mother's view is that at that point, she would rather be dead than unconscious. science may have evolved to this point, but she doesn't believe it's natural. i think she is rather scared that someone could keep her alive without her consent. my mother says all the time that when it is her time, to just let her go. who am i to tell my mother what she must do with her body? i also think that she asked me, rather than my sister, because she knows my sister would not be strong enough to do such a thing. i love my mother very deeply, but i think that to prolong her life at that point would be the result of my clinging, rather than my love for her.
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited April 2011

    why needlessly prolong her suffering? a person can exist for a long time on machines alone. my mother's view is that at that point, she would rather be dead than unconscious. science may have evolved to this point, but she doesn't believe it's natural. i think she is rather scared that someone could keep her alive without her consent. my mother says all the time that when it is her time, to just let her go. who am i to tell my mother what she must do with her body? i also think that she asked me, rather than my sister, because she knows my sister would not be strong enough to do such a thing. i love my mother very deeply, but i think that to prolong her life at that point would be the result of my clinging, rather than my love for her.
    I can understand your point of view ZG and your mothers and again I respect it. But all I am saying is that its a really tough thing to ask someone to do, and speaking for myself I would not want to put anyone in that situation and I would hope that no one would try to put me in that situation.


    Metta to all sentient beings

  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran

    why needlessly prolong her suffering? a person can exist for a long time on machines alone. my mother's view is that at that point, she would rather be dead than unconscious. science may have evolved to this point, but she doesn't believe it's natural. i think she is rather scared that someone could keep her alive without her consent. my mother says all the time that when it is her time, to just let her go. who am i to tell my mother what she must do with her body? i also think that she asked me, rather than my sister, because she knows my sister would not be strong enough to do such a thing. i love my mother very deeply, but i think that to prolong her life at that point would be the result of my clinging, rather than my love for her.
    I can understand your point of view ZG and your mothers and again I respect it. But all I am saying is that its a really tough thing to ask someone to do, and speaking for myself I would not want to put anyone in that situation and I would hope that no one would try to put me in that situation.


    Metta to all sentient beings

    to be fair, i too hope that i will never be in this situation. i explained the intellectual reasons, but of course, i think that emotions would be slightly different than i hope if i were actually in this situation.
    but at the same time, i am not upset for what my mother has asked me because i feel the same about my own self. assuming i am older, and something happened that forced me to exist on machines without the ability to communicate my desires to those around me...i would wish for someone to pull the plug as well.

    i wonder how most people feel about this situation when applied to themselves and not someone else?
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited April 2011
    What would people have done in this situation ? What we presume about the quality of life or menatal capability of an animal or human in this example is not always right.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230092/Rom-Houben-Patient-trapped-23-year-coma-conscious-along.html


    Metta to all sentient beings
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran
    What would people have done in this situation ? What we presume about the quality of life or menatal capability of an animal or human in this example is not always right.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230092/Rom-Houben-Patient-trapped-23-year-coma-conscious-along.html


    Metta to all sentient beings
    fascinating. thank you for the post.
    i don't think it's really applicable to the argument today though. his problem was that in the past, they didn't have any tests to scan for brain activity, now they do and that is why they were able to discover he was still aware.

    i just did a search for more information on him and it turns out that his doctors later determined that his communication was a hoax. it is my understanding that the brain waves are real, but the quotes they use and attribute to him are a result of the "communication facilitator"

    Laureys later concluded that messages attributed to Houben through Wouters' facilitation were not, in fact, coming from Houben after all. After the early tests, further testing met with resistance. Using a different facilitator, subsequent testing under properly controlled conditions in which fifteen objects which were shown to Houben over a period of weeks was performed, Houben was unable to communicate knowledge of any of the objects which had been shown to him during the facilitator's absence.[4][18] Dr. Novella attributed Dr. Laureys's prior error to likely insufficient experience with facilitated communication.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom_Houben
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran


    fascinating. thank you for the post.
    i don't think it's really applicable to the argument today though. his problem was that in the past, they didn't have any tests to scan for brain activity, now they do and that is why they were able to discover he was still aware.

    i just did a search for more information on him and it turns out that his doctors later determined that his communication was a hoax. it is my understanding that the brain waves are real, but the quotes they use and attribute to him are a result of the "communication facilitator"

    Laureys later concluded that messages attributed to Houben through Wouters' facilitation were not, in fact, coming from Houben after all. After the early tests, further testing met with resistance. Using a different facilitator, subsequent testing under properly controlled conditions in which fifteen objects which were shown to Houben over a period of weeks was performed, Houben was unable to communicate knowledge of any of the objects which had been shown to him during the facilitator's absence.[4][18] Dr. Novella attributed Dr. Laureys's prior error to likely insufficient experience with facilitated communication.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom_Houben
    Yes your right that case is open to debate, there are more though.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/falsely-diagnosed-coma-rom-houben

    Metta to all sentient beings

  • RicRic
    edited April 2011
    We live in tricky times, The Daily Mail is a right wing paper. Ive seen in a couple of instances where they make stuff up to fit a right wing agenda. Im not from the UK but I think it would be equivalent to getting objective news from Fox News or MSNBC for that matter...

    oo and the sound of being conscious but unable to move sounds awful. If I could decide I would rather they pull the plug.
  • zidanguszidangus Veteran
    edited April 2011
    We live in tricky times, The Daily Mail is a right wing paper. Ive seen in a couple of instances where they make stuff up to fit a right wing agenda. Im not from the UK but I think it would be equivalent to getting objective news from Fox News or MSNBC for that matter...

    oo and the sound of being conscious but unable to move sounds awful. If I could decide I would rather they pull the plug.
    Yes you are right the Daily Mail is a rag, I should have know better than to use it for a source of information. The Guardian's not bad tough :D

    Metta to all sentient beings

  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran


    fascinating. thank you for the post.
    i don't think it's really applicable to the argument today though. his problem was that in the past, they didn't have any tests to scan for brain activity, now they do and that is why they were able to discover he was still aware.

    i just did a search for more information on him and it turns out that his doctors later determined that his communication was a hoax. it is my understanding that the brain waves are real, but the quotes they use and attribute to him are a result of the "communication facilitator"

    Laureys later concluded that messages attributed to Houben through Wouters' facilitation were not, in fact, coming from Houben after all. After the early tests, further testing met with resistance. Using a different facilitator, subsequent testing under properly controlled conditions in which fifteen objects which were shown to Houben over a period of weeks was performed, Houben was unable to communicate knowledge of any of the objects which had been shown to him during the facilitator's absence.[4][18] Dr. Novella attributed Dr. Laureys's prior error to likely insufficient experience with facilitated communication.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rom_Houben
    Yes your right that case is open to debate, there are more though.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/24/falsely-diagnosed-coma-rom-houben

    Metta to all sentient beings

    this article sites some interesting instances, but i do wonder what percentage of coma patients actually wake up and how many of them simply pass away at some point. i don't know an awful lot about the topic, but i always thought that there was a difference between being in a coma and being classified as "brain dead" with no brain activity. or perhaps, there are different levels. not everyone in a coma is "brain dead", right?

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator


    I can understand your point of view ZG and your mothers and again I respect it. But all I am saying is that its a really tough thing to ask someone to do, and speaking for myself I would not want to put anyone in that situation and I would hope that no one would try to put me in that situation.


    Metta to all sentient beings

    You'd have to ask @Jason, but he once posted a sad account of a Theravada monk who committed suicide because of the extreme agony his personal illness put him through.
    Please PM him.

    Zidangus, you asked me to provide evidence of the type of animal behaviour I mentioned.
    I am not going to do that for several reasons:

    I dislike threads becoming tit-for-tat grounds for two members to hijack and use for their own personal discussion.

    It would have taken the thread even more "off-topic" than it has been.

    I can and would provide evidence, including my own certified qualification in canine Psychology, but I don't frankly see the point, because in conclusion, I doubt you would take it as proof, (given that many other 'schools of thought' cite different opinions) and in any case, I know from my experience over 20 years as a Canine behaviourist, that what I am asserting is true. it has never failed me.
    But I don't intend to shove it down anyone's throat, including yours.

    I'm going to close the thread, but as ever, if the OP would like to debate the matter further, or if anyone feels that there is more to add that would contribute constructively to the original question, please feel free to contact me via PM.

    Many thanks to everyone who contributed. It has indeed proven interesting.


This discussion has been closed.