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.
The Debate of Legalised Euthenasia
I'm very ignorant of political and other such things discussed in the news (and pretty much everything else 
) but it would be nice to hear some of the varied Buddhist opinions around the forum on it:
Down Under here in good ol' Canberra, there's been a revival of the debate about whether we should legalise the debate over legalised Euthanasia in some states. (Yup, a debate over whether there should be a debate - isn't politics redundant?)
From my nascent thoughts on it, the issues are similar to those of abortions, though not as clear and easy. Where can a line be drawn that separates the compassion to preserve life, and compassion to relieve suffering? Can a line be drawn?
The 'easiest' example could be someone whom is suffering from an acutely aggressive and agonising terminal stage of cancer. Ethical considerations in this matter involve Quality of Life and wishes and rights of the person and their kin. Is it more humane, more compassionate to allow them a painless, quick death through over-doing a chemical coma, or to let them live doped out of their wits, still in agonising pain? Or neither?
Buddhist principles and understanding hold the human life to be beautiful and sacred, and teaches the cessation of suffering through testing and understanding the dharma.
In my example, there seems to be a slight dilemma. Alleviating their suffering would be merciful, perhaps compassionate, but at the expense of a unique and auspicious life. On the other hand, continual life in such a cancer-riddled body would be torture beyond imagining - would there be even a hope of them being able to realise even a glimpse of dharma through a haze of pain, drugs and fear?
Thoughts? Examples?
Keep it nice and objective!
) but it would be nice to hear some of the varied Buddhist opinions around the forum on it:Down Under here in good ol' Canberra, there's been a revival of the debate about whether we should legalise the debate over legalised Euthanasia in some states. (Yup, a debate over whether there should be a debate - isn't politics redundant?)
From my nascent thoughts on it, the issues are similar to those of abortions, though not as clear and easy. Where can a line be drawn that separates the compassion to preserve life, and compassion to relieve suffering? Can a line be drawn?
The 'easiest' example could be someone whom is suffering from an acutely aggressive and agonising terminal stage of cancer. Ethical considerations in this matter involve Quality of Life and wishes and rights of the person and their kin. Is it more humane, more compassionate to allow them a painless, quick death through over-doing a chemical coma, or to let them live doped out of their wits, still in agonising pain? Or neither?
Buddhist principles and understanding hold the human life to be beautiful and sacred, and teaches the cessation of suffering through testing and understanding the dharma.
In my example, there seems to be a slight dilemma. Alleviating their suffering would be merciful, perhaps compassionate, but at the expense of a unique and auspicious life. On the other hand, continual life in such a cancer-riddled body would be torture beyond imagining - would there be even a hope of them being able to realise even a glimpse of dharma through a haze of pain, drugs and fear?
Thoughts? Examples?
Keep it nice and objective!
0
Comments
I have no problem with euthanasia with those who are suffering just by remaining alive. The only stipulation is that they have signed some document previously that such is their wish.
On the one hand I wanted to relieve suffering. Being honest with myself though some of the suffering I wanted to relieve was my own. I was drained and having a hard time keeping it together.
The precepts as rules completely fail as do all rules. Rules are set in stone and can't adapt to life's complexities. Precepts as precepts work very well as they can be applied to any situation by asking 'What is the most compassionate choice'. There is no guarantee the decision will be the best one, but if compassion is our guide then we have done the best we can in that moment and that is that.
I don't have a problem with euthanasia in theory, but in practice I would hope the 'rules' governing it were wise. I also wouldn't presume to judge anyone put in the position of having to make a decision regarding another's life. It's too complicated for me to think I have enough wisdom to play judge for someone else's decision.
The issue with signing a personal consent form allowing a euthanasia option is that it takes the choice, almost, from the person anyway. If the form gives power to another to grant euthanasia, then that 'right' is likely to be misused when the person feels pity and distress seeing the patient in extreme suffering. To make an awkward turn-of-phrase; it would allow "jumping the gun" scenarios to occur. The same thing would happen for the patient - even if a certain level of suffering was survivable but not in the least bit tolerable, then having that 'out-clause' glittering away might be too much temptation.
Goingforth - I get your point, I think. The example, though, has the man being able to make a choice while in a clear mind state, and (not knowing from personal experience), I'm guessing a terminal stage of aggressive metastatic cancer would beat the pain from a pair of mangled legs hands down. It does illustrate one of my points of confusion though - is it worthwhile taking the risk that once small amount of comfort might get through such a chaotic and suffering mind state? How could one go about trying to get this person to realise a portion of dharma without seeming condescending and patronising? Would it offset the possible ramifications of that amount of fear and pain in the next life - if rebirth does indeed exist?
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 is only fault when one "gives up this body and seizes another" (<a href="http://www.dhammaweb.net/Tipitaka/read.php?id=178">MN 144</a>). When it comes to our practical day-to-day lives, however, we're 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 isn't always possible.
But even though I don't see this as a black or white issue, the Buddha himself was pretty adamant about where he stood on these issues, and the willful termination of someone's life, no matter the motivation, isn't something he condoned. If we look at it from the Buddhist perspective, we can see that to kill, to assist in killing or to even speak in favor of killing violates the spirit of the first precept. For example, the <i>Vinita-vatthu</i>, 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 the other involving capital punishment:
<blockquote>Recommending means of euthanasia. The Vinita-vatthu includes a case of a criminal who has just been punished by having his hands and feet cut off. A bhikkhu asks the man's relatives, "Do you want him to die? Then make him drink buttermilk." The relatives follow the bhikkhu's recommendation, the man dies, and the bhikkhu incurs a parajika.
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. (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/bmc1/bmc1.ch04.html">BMC 1.4</a>)</blockquote>
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, especially since the weight of such <i>kamma</i> is so heavy. That being said, the precept itself is only a guideline for our protection, not a commandment that's written in stone, and there's no kind of Buddhist excommunication for breaking it. It's always up to the individual to weigh all the 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're told is the 'right' or 'moral' thing to do. (That's one of the many reasons I'm grateful for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">First Amendment</a>.)
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. Moreover, with respect to secular individuals and societies that don't subscribe to any religious beliefs that prohibit such actions, it's my opinion that individuals should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies.
As such, I support a person's right to end their own life when they're deemed to be sober and of sound mind, and I applaud Oregon, Washington and Montana for their allowance of physician-assisted suicide. In my mind, it's a personal choice that's the individual's alone to make, and denying a person that choice is equivalent to torture. When it comes to animals and invalids, however, it gets a bit more complicated since we effectively have to kill them in order to end their suffering and they have little choice in the matter.
I think that the best person to decide on quality of life is the person in question. The issue of sound mind does come into it. It's a big quandry but the fact we have a PM who will open the debate onto it is a BIG step in the right direction IMO.
At the end of the day though, I'm pro-euthanasia, but there are often other things to consider sadly (mainly is the person wanting to die in the right state of mind to consider it). To me you can have idiot compassion and wise compassion. Wise compassion in this circumstance (IMO) would be recognising the suffering the person is under and wanting to help them stop it. Idiot compassion would be either keeping them alive to stop others suffering the loss from the death OR allowing the person to kill themselves even if they weren't in any fit state of mind to make any decision, let alone one like this.
In metta,
Raven
I guess, if one were to take the stance of absolutely not condoning any termination of life, then one would ensure that sufficient (up to safe levels) procedures were taken to minimise physical suffering, and then ensure that comfort were given as best as one could to ease the mental suffering. I'm not sure how I would go about it if I were in such a regrettable situation - you can't just pat someone on the head and say "there, there, it'll be over soon". That's not really helpful. It's a different scenario to someone in a long-term non-responsive comatose state with no standing DNR order.
I guess I'm trying to figure out the skillful response if I were ever required to make such a decision - whether I was a fully ordained monk in a standard secular tradition, or just a lay practitioner. I agree now, however, that as far as non-Buddhist governmental incidentals are concerned, legalised euthanasia with careful and considered guidelines are called for.
I can understand your views on the vinaya and also appreciate your honesty in stating that you have never really scrutinised them.As I and other monks have stated the stand point that we must take is laid down.However I can see the dilemma people can find themselves in.Governments laying down legislation unfortunately get it wrong 90% of the time,or just over complicate things.I have been loving in england for a few years where euthanasia is illegal.There is a clinic in Switzerland that does voluntery euthanasia which british people are using a lot but if you go there with your loved and have to assist them in any way,i.e getting on and off the plane,helping them into the apartment where they will spend there last hours or help with the making up of or taking of the mixture you can be charged with assisting a suicide when you return back to britain.There was a court case recently,bought by a women who wanted the law clarified as she is suffering from some incurable disease(cant remember what) and wanted to now exactly what her husband could and could not do when the time came for her to end her life(which she wishes to do).
I remember my own nephew back in NZ who had leukemia and the horrendous suffering that poor little bloke had.
The day I got a call telling me he had died was a real blessing.He had been through enough for a 4 year old.I too have made it clear that if I am dying I do not want machines keeping me alive.If the doctors have done all they can to save me and the only way I will be able to breath is through the use of a machine then switch the machine off.If I continue breathing all well and good.If I don't then my hospital bed is free to pehaps save somene else.
Thanks goingforth - I've been meditating on this somewhat, and while I'm not getting closer to 'an answer', I feel that an understanding is close. It's very difficult for me to consider ramifications of actions and thoughts with regards to the precepts