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.
Euthanizing an animal...
Today when I was checking on my fish, I saw that one of the fish had injured herself somehow, I assume she got caught in the filter. She was all torn up, and yet still swimming around to try to escape her tankmates who were nibbling on her torn flesh.
I euthanized her, wanting to end her suffering. I plunged her in a mixture of crushed ice (she's tropical), water from the tank, and clove oil (to knock her out). After about 5 seconds, all gill movement stopped and there were no more signs of life.
My question is, was this wrong? I understand that it was a violation of the first precept, however she was already dying. I merely wanted to speed things along, since she would have otherwise probably taken another couple of hours, with her tankmates eating her alive. I just felt sorry for her, especially since it was my carelessness in choosing a filter with wide intake slots. I have since covered the end of this filter with cheesecloth.
I would appreciate some feedback. I'm a little confused as to whether this action was good or bad, and if I should repeat this in the future if another fish gets injured badly or very ill.
I euthanized her, wanting to end her suffering. I plunged her in a mixture of crushed ice (she's tropical), water from the tank, and clove oil (to knock her out). After about 5 seconds, all gill movement stopped and there were no more signs of life.
My question is, was this wrong? I understand that it was a violation of the first precept, however she was already dying. I merely wanted to speed things along, since she would have otherwise probably taken another couple of hours, with her tankmates eating her alive. I just felt sorry for her, especially since it was my carelessness in choosing a filter with wide intake slots. I have since covered the end of this filter with cheesecloth.
I would appreciate some feedback. I'm a little confused as to whether this action was good or bad, and if I should repeat this in the future if another fish gets injured badly or very ill.
0
Comments
You definitely did the right thing...
When I was younger I rescued a very wonderful Siamese fighting fish who was suffering in a dark basement in the building where I worked. I took him home and named him Pablo Neruda after my favorite Spanish poet. He was very smart and would swim up to the glass when I came home, and would bob at the top for treats. I loved him very much but one day the inevitable happened, I came home and he was dead. I took his bowl to the river and let him drift away.
I agree with the others that it was the right thing to do in the long run, you did it out of compassion. I might have done the same thing (as hard as it would have been for me) in your position
precept.
They explain that at the point of killing, you get bad karma becos
you are committing a violent act.
Its a tough issue, if I am totally disabled , would I ask someone to end my life? I dont know.
But I think the Buddhist principle is clear, no killing.
Metta to all sentient beings
It's not really clear that the 1st precept is broken (to me). Rules can be broken, but can precepts be broken? Some definitions of the word precept equate it with the word rule or the word commandment, but others liken it more to guidelines, helpful suggestions.
Personally I have no use for rules. Rules are static, fixed, one size fits all in all circumstances for all times things. Real life isn't that cut and dried.
We can all agree that murdering for personal gain is wrong. That's pretty clear. We will not all agree on what to do with a life that is clearly suffering and has little to no hope of the suffering ending other than via death. In such a messy situation rules are not needed, compassion is.
Once a person has made their decision it's easy to armchair quarterback and use our magnificent powers of hindsight to sit in judgment, but here again compassion is what is most needed.
I don't mean to contradict the Buddha, but in hindsight I would make the first precept 'Practice compassion first and let everything else be secondary'.
These discussions remind me of Christians sitting around discussing to what degree they should be compassionate to those evil degenerates who practice homosexuality. They aren't bad people and they mean well, they are just ignorant and unduly influenced by what they perceive to be the letter of the law while ignoring it's spirit.
Positive: With deeds of loving kindness I purify my body
Negative: I undertake the training principle of not harming living beings.
I just dont see how euthanizing a fish or any other sentient being can be considered as loving kindness. After all no one actually knows if the fish would not have made a full recovery if it were not euthanized.
The problem I have with this euthanizing stuff, is that it can lead to the death of a sentient being just because people think they are better of dead. Well there are many stories in which people have been told they wont live long by Drs and there life will be very painful etc etc, and guess what they have went on to live long happy lifes ( A great example is stephen hawking), also the whole thing gives one sentient being the power of life or death over another sentient being, which when carried out, is not only egotistical, but just plain and simple wrong in my opinion.
And your right the precepts are not rules, but are meant to make you think about what causes suffering and happiness, so think about what the first precept is telling you.
Metta to all sentient beings
"From now on I will not take the life of any being."
In order for a precept to be considered fully broken you need four factors:
(1) intention (the intention to take the life of a specific being in this case a fish)
(2) the object upon which to commit the action (the fish)
(3) the action itself (the act of killing)
(4) the intended result (the death of this specific fish) and a sense of satisfaction when it occurs.
In this case, the intention is to remove suffering not to take a life out of anger so the first factor is not complete. Also, while the death occurs there is no satisfaction in the result so the fourth factor is not complete.
There is no question that this damages (rather than breaks) the first precept. However, foolishly preserving these precepts out of a sense of moral purity is a grave fault of the bodhisattva vow. This does depend on the determination that the fish is mortally wounded and would suffer tremendously without intervention and has no chance of recovery. Allowing it to die by using ice is a much kinder death than to suffer from infection and bullying by other fish.
It is an odd thing this bodhisattva life. It's not cut and dried at all, but the one thing the person taking such vows can be certain of is a life of extreme pain and suffering. The more one cares the more they realize how much others care. The more one develops the skill of empathy, the more in touch one gets with their own emotional states, the more whole and complete they become, but at the same time the more suffering they must endure as they internalize the emotions of others.
Life truly is perverse.
As my guru said, real compassion is heartbreak.
pain and she begs you to end her life?
Would you kill an animal to feed your starving child?
Would you kill your pet dog who has been a loyal friend for 10 years to feed your starving child?
Would you kill a robber who took your food without which your family will starve to death?
True..but also, no actually knows if the fish would not have suffered for another few hours.
There are terminally ill sentient humans that would be only too glad to express how putting them out of their extreme and never-ending pain (and often, accompanying lack of dignity, mobility, and independence) would be loving kindness, if given the opportunity.
Yes, quite possibly, quite possibly, and no.
The first three present a choice between different kinds of suffering (i.e., that of a sentient animal versus that of a sentient and sapient child), the fourth doesn't seem to even belong in that series. Killing the robber won't feed my family or alleviate their suffering in any genuine way.
Well If I were the fish, I would want to be given a chance at least !
Metta to al sentient beings
No, you wouldn't, because you wouldn't have that capacity..that's part of the point.
Metta to all sentient beings
http://www.ancient-buddhist-texts.net/English-Texts/Garland-of-Birth-Stories/
Anyway at least it was their choice !
Metta to all sentient beings
The desire to alleviate unnecessary suffering.
Also, while it is true that a non-sapient being cannot readily communicate with us, you seem to be under the impression that non-human animals have 'thoughts' or 'feelings' on the matter which they could convey to us if only we could understand them. It seems to me that were this the case, as far as science can determine, many more zoologists (and ethologists in particular) would be adamantly opposed to euthanasia of injured animals, keeping them as pets, etc.
Your arguments seem to be precluded on the belief that life should be clung to at all odds, regardless of said life's quality, that the mere fact of existence is of primary or sole importance rather than what that existence actually entails for the one who must live it (sapient or otherwise).
Suffering and death are unavoidable aspects of corporeal existence. To oppose euthanasia with the argument--implied or otherwise--that life of any kind (even an unrelentingly painful one) is preferable to not living, seems to me overly preoccupied with clinging to earthly existence, and unhealthily fearful of death.
Well yes I do believe that animals have thoughts, and feelings, I also believe that I have been in the past and may be in the future, be reborn as an animal, so I find it a bit egotistical of you to say that you or any other human should decide if a fish or any other life is worth living or not. As for zoologists (and ethologists in particular) opposing the euthanasia of injured animals if they though that animals had feelings, well guess what I am a scientist and I know that "us" scientists havent event scratched the surface, when it comes to understanding this universe and life we live, so excuse me if I don't have much time for the interpretations of ethologists on this matter.
And I am not arguing that we cling to life, at all, what I am arguing is that you don't have the right to decide when another life should end.
Metta to all sentient beings
Many people care so little that they'd happily walk past a dying animal without easing its passing, it takes a truly compassionate heart to perform such an unpleasant action for the benefit of another.
You're straw-manning a bit..it's not simply a matter if deciding if the life of any particular being "is worth living or not" in general...but rather, in very specific circumstances, going case by case. Also, it seems strange to say that non-human animals are worthy of consideration because we may have been one or could be reborn as one..shouldn't they be worthy of consideration anyway?
I agree with mainstream science and with those who have stated that this seems like an irrational or inappropriate form of anthropomorphism (e.g., incorrectly attributing human characteristics to beings that are not human); since you don't, it seems we're at an impasse.
I've not claimed that scientists know everything about the universe, and of course no decent scientist would.
Also, I think it's a bit disingenuous as a nuclear physicist (according to your profile) to lump yourself in with scientists specifically devoted to the study of animal behaviour.
I would say that it is a daunting responsibility when the situation of a choice arises, but one could just as easily argue that you don't have the right to decide that someone's pain should not end.
I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree, but that's okay.
It's an ideological standpoint which is only effective in theory, because it demands everyone to follow it to be truly felt in the world. To think that we "save" someone by killing them is, to me, delusional at best. Especially someone who cannot ask to be killed.
The action isn't totally unwholesome though, being of right intention and of good outcome for yourself (cleaning your consciousness). If it was a good outcome for the fish (or other euthanized creature), well - maybe the fish would've asked you to try and heal it, it could've been a though fish who would stand against the pain.. We don't know..
Your act was through loving kindness!
There are many contradictions in Buddhism and this is one of them! You acted for the greater good....the relief of suffering. Its now in the past and you can't change your action and by feeling guilty results in suffering. Relieve the suffering and don't feel guilty!
After all, some may have flushed it down the loo!
Your act was through loving kindness!
There are many contradictions in Buddhism and this is one of them! You acted for the greater good....the relief of suffering. Its now in the past and you can't change your action and by feeling guilty results in suffering. Relieve the suffering and don't feel guilty!
After all, some may have flushed it down the loo!
I have to disagree with this tack in the argument. All beings from human to amoeba advance towards pleasure and retreat from pain. Anyone who has spent any time with a cat or dog knows that they are capable of emotion. Whether they are capable of intellection or not is debatable, however the same thing can be said about Republicans in this great country of ours.
Mainstream science today is most closely associated with the businesses which pay for research. They also have a vested interest in downplaying the cognitive capacity of those they subject to experiments. I find the idea that we are being inappropriately anthopomorphic less likely than that science has merely picked up on the Judeo-Christian motif that animals are put on earth for our use.
I agree..but then I've not claimed that one must be on a mission to actively seek out, judge and remove suffering (with the implicit notion that it is judged to be "unnecessary" suffering). I agree that this would be an improper take on the first precept.
And yet, I can readily imagine situations in which it might be deemed worse to live by the person in question (assuming they are sapient). There are worse things than dying.
This brings up an intriguing possibility..could it be argued that any and all suffering should ideally be coped with rather than avoided or removed by others?
To clarify my own views, I think that while one can utilise the dharma to avoid notorious sources of suffering (immoderate desires, specific triggers to unskillful behaviour such as alcohol, etc), it must be understood and accepted that no matter how cautious and disciplined, one will still suffer. Sometimes, one simply has to "grin and bear it", as the saying goes (and in my understanding though I have not studied so far in the suttas, the dharma advises on this as well).
So then...rather than supporting euthanasia, is there a view among some Buddhist schools or strains of thought that seeking to alleviate suffering in this circumstance is unskillful? (That the afflicted should "grin and bear it", though of course that is being blunt.) And if so, how far does this extend, to 'allow' others to suffer rather than to commit the fallacy of removing or lessening the suffering?
Metta to all sentient beings
I should have been more specific when I mentioned human characteristics...obviously some animals can express things such as affection, etc. But there is still an element of human (per se) awareness that is not reproduced in lower animals, and it seems incredibly fanciful to say or imply that non-human animals have (at least, at this stage of evolution) the same potentials for awareness (and therefore, of suffering) and cognitive function as human beings.
I do think it's important to investigate sources, including funding..and the fact that a given study was funded by a group with a clear agenda (say, a think tank catering to one political ideology or another) will diminish the credibility of its findings, and rightly so. But it seems to me that virtually anything and everything determined by the scientific body at large could be dismissed then..I have noticed that this often happens in discussion of evolutionary theory with creationists.
*nod* I don't agree with that motif..but I do think that as the only sapient species, we have a responsibility toward the natural world, particularly the sentient-but-non-sapient organisms comprising it. Sometimes that may involve sacrificing the interests of business, in order to protect an animal's much needed habitat; sometimes that may involve culling a group of animals in order to avoid slow lingering starvation of that species, or extinction of another species.
Lastly I treat all sentient beings as equals, I am not better than a dog, ant, fish, and I am not worse, so I disagree with your wording when you talk about "lower animals".
Metta to all sentient beings
Metta to all sentient beings
Which brings up another question..is putting people in life-support technology in hospitals then wrong, by Buddhist standards?
And Chrysalid, do you think a sentient being can escape suffering by being euthanized ?
Metta to all sentient beings
The most compassionate action would be to remove the fish and keep it in another fish tank and see if it would recover. If death was inevitable, and one really wanted to kill it, I would advise dropping it into boiling water or chopping off the head with a heavy blade. Anyway, it's up to each person to decide and I won't say I'd never kill a suffering animal - but I would still be doing an unwholesome and unskillful action.
In fact I don't know any Buddhist schools, but I think I lean towards Theravada if anything. I have no clue to what thinkers in any school believe, but from the little I've read Theravada seems most "by the book" - and my "Buddhism" is cut to the bone - four truths, one Eight-Fold Way
It extends to causing suffering yourself - to kill someone who wants to or are able to live, is to cause suffering. To cause pain (like locating dislocated limbs) isn't causing suffering, albeit it causes pain. Suffering is pain, but pain is not necessarily suffering.
But you've just talked about being against euthanasia because you prefer that people die naturally...it's not 'natural' in the strictest sense to be kept alive with machines. So it would seem there is a contradiction here.
In any case, I feel better about the validity of euthanasia--at least with humans--as a skillful Buddhist practice, after finding and reading this from His Holiness the Dalai Lama:
http://www.tibet.ca/en/newsroom/wtn/archive/old?y=1996&m=9&p=18_4
There is no contradiction to what I said at all, If a human is kept on a life support system then that life support technology may keep them alive, but it does not keep them alive forever, sooner or later they will die, as all beings who live in Samsara must. So when that time comes they would still die naturally, without anyone killing them. As I said life support technology is a technology that favours being kept alive unlike euthanasia, so I dont understand what point your trying make when you talking about life support technology, Buddhism and euthanasia.
Metta to all sentient beings
And there is a link on this from wiki and as you may probably realise from my posts, I completely agree with the Theravada view on this subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_euthanasia
You bring up an interesting point when you say that you do not oppose life support because is 'supports life'.
It is clear that being on life support, unless the person is completely anaesthetized is very distressing, painful and frightening - it increases suffering and in many cases prolongs dying rather than maintaining any quality of life. We often put people on life support without their consent. This includes premature babies, children of all ages, the elderly, victims of accidents or illness who have no advance directive etc.
It can be argued that in many cases we increase and prolong their suffering primarily for our own sake; we want to win the 'battle' of 'saving' the person's life or we don't want to face losing them. Some of those people survive and are grateful, some of those people survive to endure agonies until we 'allow' them to die, some endure months of intensive care (which has been described as 'hell' by many patients) before someone decides that it is time to 'let them go'. Some may argue that we can't always predict who will survive therefore we have to try and save them all. This is not always the case. I have seen obviously dying people with no hope of survival put on life support because that is what the family or doctors want.
I know whereof I speak, having worked as a staff nurse in ITU and having visited some of those that I care about since my career change.
The idea of allowing animals to endure agonies so that you do not attract negative kamma is repellent to me. To be willing to watch them suffer knowing that you have the power to stop it is revolting - I would rather take the consequences of making a tough decision.
Putting others first is the essence of loving kindness in my opinion.
Metta
Well unless the person on the life support, can physically tell someone they do not want to be on the life support system, then I would keep them on it, until they died naturally. Its their life, not mine, and therefore not my right to decide if it ends or not.
And I think its more revolting to kill an animal, rather than to care for it until it passes away naturally, and who knows the animal may make a recovery. I wonder how many animals there are that have been killed, because someone thought that they were in too much suffering, that would have made a full recovery. We will never know for sure, but I bet its greater than zero.
Its seems there are a lot of people out there who are quick to end the life of sentient beings they can't even communicate with, and ask if its what they want, just because "they" think its the right thing to do.
I wonder if people who support euthanasia, support it also for animals such as stray dogs, who are healthy but euthanized because they cannot find homes for them. It would be interesting to find out.
As a Buddhist I believe in rebirth within Samsara, therefore when people talk about ending the suffering of a sentient being by euthanizing them, well I'm sorry I don't think your ending there suffering at all, they could still expereince suffering in future lifes IMO. So I just dont believe that a sentient being can escape suffering by being euthanized, it solves nothing.
So this is maybe where the foundation of the disagreement with those people who support euthanasia is based.
I just think it is better to try and spend every moment possible being there for a sentient being caring and supporting them in there time of need, helping them prepare for every outcome death and recovery.
Metta to all sentient beings
It all depends on how we define life. We can only guess what Buddha would have said regarding such a scenario, had he lived in the 21st century. I personally think he would have supported switching off the machine or, going back to the original question ending the fishes' suffering (if indeed a fish has capacity to suffer).
Some here may disagree with me, but that's ok. Most of us have an ability to make choices, and as I get older I become more confident that the choices I have made are correct.
Zidangus, we do fundamentally differ in that I do not believe in rebirth, in the same sense, as you do and I believe that I will never have the faith to do so. That is fine though
This is a sticky issue but always a good one to discuss because of it's importance and because we'll all have to face some aspect of it in our lifetimes. It seems to me that we're meant to think very carefully about it because to refrain from killing is the very First Precept the Buddha gave us. It's important to see the issue from as many different angles as possible and to bring as much of our wisdom to it as we can and talking about it together is a good way to do that.
So many good points have been brought up. Like karmadorje's point: I couldn't agree more. There's no wisdom in that. Only conceit. And following the true spirit of these precepts is far more difficult and requires far more thought than mindlessly following an order one sees only in terms of black or white.
zidangus and ficus make good points here. A separate hospital tank for the sick or injured would be a good thing. That way neither you nor the fish would have to suffer the whole 'being eaten alive' thing *shudder* and you could allow the fish to live out its 'natural' life as much as possible by letting nature take its course. The fish will either recover and live or die naturally in as much peace and comfort as you can give him. Either way, the less invasive interference on our part as humans is probably the better thing. After all, we really don't know what we're doing when we put an animal to death. It may appear to us that we're ending its suffering but we don't actually know for sure if that's the case. All we really know is that the fish is no longer a living being in this world due to an action on our part that we can never take back. Beyond that only the wisest know for sure.
Allowing a sick/injured fish to die a natural death may seem like a much harder thing to do. You don't want the fish to suffer and you don't want to suffer watching the fish die. But I think it's important to ask ourselves, "Am I really doing what's right for the animal or am I doing what feels better for me?" Sometimes the wiser and more compassionate thing to do is the harder thing to do. This isn't an easy path. It requires great effort, fortitude, and selflessness.
I think there are extraordinary cases where euthanasia may be required, as HHDL pointed out. But when the decision is in our hands it makes sense to do all we can to give the animal a chance to survive and if all our efforts fail, to allow it to have a natural death. But if neither of these things is possible, I think ficus said it well: ".....I won't say I'd never kill a suffering animal - but I would still be doing an unwholesome and unskillful action." In which case we must be strong, honest, and accept whatever consequences come from our actions without torturing ourselves with useless guilt.
In the end we can only do our best with what we have. If there was no other tank for the wee fish to die naturally in then I think I would have done what you did. Watching my pet fish being eaten alive under those circumstances would just be too much for me at this stage of my spiritual development. Maybe someday I'll be stronger and wiser but I'm not there yet.
I hope you're not torturing yourself with any guilt because you don't deserve to suffer. And I hope your wee fish rests in peace.
Fair enough:)
I wonder if one has to go by the book or use the mind according to the situation. Besides, for actual killing to create a bad karma, there ought to be conditions like if there is an intention to kill and Buddha knows, what else. While it is true that killing is not advocated, in cases where it has been done, there ought to be a way to undo the bad that has been done. Of course, the life that has been taken cannot be revived but if you have read about the life of Angulimala, the mass murderer did become enlightened too, didn't he?