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.
There will never be agreement on this. Those who think that euthanasia is wrong or unskillful won't do it, and those who don't see it that way will. I think perhaps we should just leave it at that and let each decide for himself or herself.
I find this whole debate very interesting. It is certainly a moral mindfield & I also think that theory is very, very different to practice.
There have been some excellent points raised, both for & against euthanasia & there are no definitive answers - as Mountains has said, each of us will have our own perspective & interpretation of the first precept.
A couple of things I would like to throw into the mix if I may.
1. Anyone who has ever kept animals & has taken the time to understand the (often) complex communication which occurs through behaviour will know when that particular animal is in pain, distress or discomfort. I do not believe that it is impossible to determine when an animal has 'had enough' of life. I think they communicate it to us & sometimes that communication is incredibly clear.
What one does about that is a very individual thing but clear communication combined with a clinical condition which cannot be managed, reversed, or cured makes decision making somewhat challenging.
2. "Life Support" is a complete misnomer. Fran45 has illustrated what happens in an ITU setting very well. It can be incredibly difficult watching a person's body being artificially managed even though they are clinically brain dead. There is no chance of recovery & in any other setting that person would have already died a 'natural' death - what is happening is not "life support" but body preservation for the sake of the people around them. To my mind this is neither compassionate nor natural for the person on "life support".
3. We do not live in a natural environment nor do we bring our pets up in a natural environment. To speak of allowing pets to linger & die in pain because that is the 'natural' thing to do surely goes against nature itself. In nature a sick animal will go away somewhere to die or be predated by another animal.
4. Why is it acceptable to prolong life beyond what would have been considered natural years ago by the use of artificial means? We consider it compassionate to perform surgery on patients with cancer, to hook up patients to cancer-killing drugs even though it makes them very sick, to use drugs to counteract medical conditions etc. This is classed as some kind of wonderful breakthrough & praiseworthy & yet, in the very act of prolonging life, we are possibly negating the needs of the people we are trying so hard to 'save". Not everyone wants to be pulled about & treated by clinicians.
In terms of the animals - the above is all seen as acceptable & compassionate but the most compassionate act of euthanasia is frowned upon as being somehow uncompassionate & unacceptable.
I have seen time & again people here very eloquently discussing intent & the benefits to the entire world of compassion but I do wonder how compassionate it is to allow another being to suffer past the time of their natural death - just because we can prolong life does not mean we should, surely? At what point does prolonging life become less compassionate than taking the decision to end life where we can & where the patient has indicated they are in pain & suffering?
Personally I keep pets & I have had to take many of them to the vets to perform what I believe to be the last, most compassionate act I can as their owner. They are in an artificial environment & live artificial lives so it is my responsibility to do everything I can to give them the best life (& death) I possibly can. I am happy to take that responsibility of intent upon myself & I will live with whatever consequences come because I believe strongly in the sanctity of life but I also believe that where it is in my control to ease suffering I will do so.
I am happy to take that responsibility of intent upon myself & I will live with whatever consequences come because I believe strongly in the sanctity of life but I also believe that where it is in my control to ease suffering I will do so.
I agree completely.
Perhaps someone who is a purist regarding the first precept should also consider Jainist practices? After all everything we eat and drink, every move we make kills or causes suffering to some living being somewhere both directly and indirectly. As has been said, samsara is a messy place. We all have to make our own judgements.
I just had a thought, maybe more relevant to the discussion than ending the fishes life.
.
If we respect life equally between creatures, then should we satisfy our own cravings/desires by keeping them in cages or tanks?
I don't like the idea of animals anywhere but their natural environment which is why I now only have a dog. We used to have a snake and pet rats, but I feel uncomfortable about seeing anything confined.
I think if she were a human who had practiced the dharma it could have been your fishes choice to sit with the suffering and learn from it.
There is an argument that the fish could have extinguished bad karma, but only if it was skillful with it. And there is endless bad karma. And good. So you never know what the next life will be like.
If you don't believe in rebirth again the fish can't tell you what it wants. I assume it would rather be euthanized than eaten slowly If it could think
And Chrysalid, do you think a sentient being can escape suffering by being euthanized ?
Sorry haven't been on in a couple of days.
If a sentient being is terminally ill (i.e. no chance of recovery), and suffering, then yes I believe their suffering can be ended by euthanasia. An animal will try to keep living no matter what, it's instinctual, but as human beings with the sapience to know that they're suffering is pointless (they're going to die anyway) I feel it's our duty to make that suffering as short as possible.
The bbc have a interesting webpage on how Buddhists view this topic, I don't know who the author is though, but I agree with a lot of the points that are made in it.
If ones future rebirth is related to the state of mind at the moment of death and if it is within our power to assist in a peaceful, painless passing for our pet, isn't it best to provide those conditions? Our 19yr old beloved cat, Maggie, lies in the bedroom dieing from several old age complications which, If we are fortunate, we will all suffer from. She can't hear, she can't smell (Therefore eat) without force feeding, she seems to have occasional severe pain, etc. If she dies in a spasm of pain, or when she is alone (We both work) and fearful, isn't that a force that determines rebirth? Alternatively, if we are holding her, praying for her, in her home while the vet administers a sedative, then a finishing drug when she is asleep...I dunno, that seems compassionate towards her as well as meaningful to us. Somethings happening soon. I look forward to any responses.
This is an interesting thread. And I can see and understand why various people have different viewpoints.
I guess where I come down on it is -- I disagree with pet owners who easily put their pets down, rather than having them treated because treatment is expensive. That's not compassionaite -- to me a major tenet of Buddhism. To me, if you're going to take on the responsibility of a pet, that should include doing everything reasonable to assure its health and quality of life.
But, there does come a time when a pet cannot recover, and there I tend to follow the same guideline I would use for myself (and this is something I have had to think of recently when I found I had a heart problem and had to draw up a will and living will). I don't want to suffer and I don't want a pet to suffer NEEDLESSLY, when their is no possibility of a recovery. Prolonging suffering doesn't seem very Buddhist, either.
Interesting discussion. I think "NOTaGangsta" put it perfectly, it's all about intention. I the intent is to halt needless suffering then I can accept it. If the intent is to rid yourself of an unwanted responsibility(financial or otherwise) then I cannot. Unfortunately with a 16 year stint as a veterinary technician, you'd be surprised how much we see the latter. That being said, one must be careful of good intentions as they sometimes lead to bad outcomes....if the wrong person uses the right means, the right means work in the wrong way.
Living this life - actually this moment, for that is all there is to being, imprisoned by precepts interpreted as rigid moral absolutes might be called self indulgent or selfish. Conventional reality delivers us into a very intimate dance between life and death and moral and ethical strength is necessary at times to be merciful and compassionate. Prolonging suffering and death by invoking an ethical standard because one is not told what to do by the sufferer, whether capable of communicating it or not, is truly a violation of the first precept. Watch your child decimated by cancer and chemotherapy then placed on life support as a matter of procedure when major organs fail and listen to the chief of ICU explain that your child will not recover - then claim that you may not act mercifully to allow your child release to death because of a precept. Sorry, it doesn't wash. It is too complex to simply claim adherence. One is not a better or worse Buddhist because one must live and act in samsara and everything that entails. Thinking so means you have missed the point entirely. So delicate is this dance that one may even feel grief over a lost pet fish!
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).
So much love, so touching
The Buddha taught: "Intention, I tell you, is kamma"
Buddhism does not conflict with our intuitive intelligence
Comments
Seconded.
There have been some excellent points raised, both for & against euthanasia & there are no definitive answers - as Mountains has said, each of us will have our own perspective & interpretation of the first precept.
A couple of things I would like to throw into the mix if I may.
1. Anyone who has ever kept animals & has taken the time to understand the (often) complex communication which occurs through behaviour will know when that particular animal is in pain, distress or discomfort. I do not believe that it is impossible to determine when an animal has 'had enough' of life. I think they communicate it to us & sometimes that communication is incredibly clear.
What one does about that is a very individual thing but clear communication combined with a clinical condition which cannot be managed, reversed, or cured makes decision making somewhat challenging.
2. "Life Support" is a complete misnomer. Fran45 has illustrated what happens in an ITU setting very well. It can be incredibly difficult watching a person's body being artificially managed even though they are clinically brain dead. There is no chance of recovery & in any other setting that person would have already died a 'natural' death - what is happening is not "life support" but body preservation for the sake of the people around them. To my mind this is neither compassionate nor natural for the person on "life support".
3. We do not live in a natural environment nor do we bring our pets up in a natural environment. To speak of allowing pets to linger & die in pain because that is the 'natural' thing to do surely goes against nature itself. In nature a sick animal will go away somewhere to die or be predated by another animal.
4. Why is it acceptable to prolong life beyond what would have been considered natural years ago by the use of artificial means? We consider it compassionate to perform surgery on patients with cancer, to hook up patients to cancer-killing drugs even though it makes them very sick, to use drugs to counteract medical conditions etc. This is classed as some kind of wonderful breakthrough & praiseworthy & yet, in the very act of prolonging life, we are possibly negating the needs of the people we are trying so hard to 'save". Not everyone wants to be pulled about & treated by clinicians.
In terms of the animals - the above is all seen as acceptable & compassionate but the most compassionate act of euthanasia is frowned upon as being somehow uncompassionate & unacceptable.
I have seen time & again people here very eloquently discussing intent & the benefits to the entire world of compassion but I do wonder how compassionate it is to allow another being to suffer past the time of their natural death - just because we can prolong life does not mean we should, surely? At what point does prolonging life become less compassionate than taking the decision to end life where we can & where the patient has indicated they are in pain & suffering?
Personally I keep pets & I have had to take many of them to the vets to perform what I believe to be the last, most compassionate act I can as their owner. They are in an artificial environment & live artificial lives so it is my responsibility to do everything I can to give them the best life (& death) I possibly can. I am happy to take that responsibility of intent upon myself & I will live with whatever consequences come because I believe strongly in the sanctity of life but I also believe that where it is in my control to ease suffering I will do so.
I agree completely.
Perhaps someone who is a purist regarding the first precept should also consider Jainist practices? After all everything we eat and drink, every move we make kills or causes suffering to some living being somewhere both directly and indirectly. As has been said, samsara is a messy place. We all have to make our own judgements.
Metta
.
If we respect life equally between creatures, then should we satisfy our own cravings/desires by keeping them in cages or tanks?
Metta
There is an argument that the fish could have extinguished bad karma, but only if it was skillful with it. And there is endless bad karma. And good. So you never know what the next life will be like.
If you don't believe in rebirth again the fish can't tell you what it wants. I assume it would rather be euthanized than eaten slowly
If a sentient being is terminally ill (i.e. no chance of recovery), and suffering, then yes I believe their suffering can be ended by euthanasia. An animal will try to keep living no matter what, it's instinctual, but as human beings with the sapience to know that they're suffering is pointless (they're going to die anyway) I feel it's our duty to make that suffering as short as possible.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/euthanasiasuicide.shtml
I guess where I come down on it is -- I disagree with pet owners who easily put their pets down, rather than having them treated because treatment is expensive. That's not compassionaite -- to me a major tenet of Buddhism. To me, if you're going to take on the responsibility of a pet, that should include doing everything reasonable to assure its health and quality of life.
But, there does come a time when a pet cannot recover, and there I tend to follow the same guideline I would use for myself (and this is something I have had to think of recently when I found I had a heart problem and had to draw up a will and living will). I don't want to suffer and I don't want a pet to suffer NEEDLESSLY, when their is no possibility of a recovery. Prolonging suffering doesn't seem very Buddhist, either.
The Buddha taught: "Intention, I tell you, is kamma"
Buddhism does not conflict with our intuitive intelligence
Please be at ease