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.
Is Euthanasia allowed in buddhism?
The teacher talked about Euthanasia today and it reminded me of an accident several months ago. My dog was violently hit by a car. He was bleeding, trembling and whining in my arms on the way to the vet's. I was heart broken when seeing him in great pain. He was just a tiny puppy. The vet said he had no chance to survive. I begged the vet to give my dog a shot to end his life. Im a vegetarian. I dont even kill a mosquito but I killed my own dog. Did I do the wrong thing? If one of your family were dying in great pain and he requested to be euthanized, what would you do? Thank you for advising.
0
Comments
I don't think that euthanasia should be taken lightly. There are many things to take into consideration; quality of life, amount of pain, mental well-being, chance of survival (ie comas), etc.
Being that everyone will have different views on this - I think each case would have to be taken into consideration by all people involved. I know that sounds odd, because ultimately, it is only one person involved - the person being killed.
But, if someone suffers from mental issues, I don't think that they may be making a judgement with a sound mind. It might take others that have known this person or family members to help with this decision.
As for what Buddhism thinks about it - I think Right View and Right Intention would come into play. If someone is dying from being in a car accident and there is no real chance of survival, they're dealing with tons of pain at the moment - is ending that pain really a bad thing to do?
If someone is dying of cancer and lives with horrible pain each day - is ending that pain really a bad thing to do?
-bf
There is no really concrete 'yes' or 'no' answer to this question in Buddhism as each case is unique.
There was once a monk who was in a great amount of pain, for example, and he decided to end his life. In that one instance, the Buddha found him to be 'blameless'. The reason was that that monk was freed from greed, hatred, and delusion and such an action was not made out of selfish reasons.
‘Sariputta, there may be the families of venerable Channa’s friends, well-wishers and earlier relatives, I say, there is no fault to that extent. Sariputta, if someone gives up this body and seizes another, I say it is a fault. In the bhikkhu that fault is not apparent. Bhikkhu Channa took his life faultlessly.'
- From the Channovada Sutta
In your case, neither you nor your dog may have been 'enlightened', but you made the best decision that you possibly could have under the circumstances. I am quite positive that under those particular circumstances, the choices you made were blameless. You should not harbor any guilt over your decision, but instead you should try to forgive yourself and simply let go of that guilt. Dwellling on it is not the "Buddhist" way. It is by these things that we learn about life, as well as ourselves.
Ajahn Brahmavamso once said that if you "asked" your pet if it wanted to be put to sleep in such cases, you would know the answer. People have close bonds with their pets, and there is no reason to believe that they cannot communicate their feelings. If it was done out of love and compassion to end an immense amount of suffering, who can find fault in such an action? Certainly not I.
I am very sorry to hear that you were forced to make such a difficult decision, but I believe that you did the right thing.
Jason
I'd do the same as you. You did the right thing. For the relative in great pain, if there is no hope of them coming to terms with the pain, if their quality of life is so affected that it is really a contradiction in terms - again yes, I'd support euthanasia. Buddhism doesn't really tell us what we should or shouldn't do, but to show our innate compassion and wisdom, which is what you did when you had your dog put down.
It starts with your Thought process, and Right View.... And the ability to discern and decide wisely is your responsability and on your shoulders. No two people are alike. No two people, sharing the 'same' experience, will go through the same thing....
But Wisdom and Compassion, alongside Unconditional Love, are ideal companions. Bring these into play with Right Intention, and your conscience, for you, is clear.
Take heart then, that what both you and your vet decided, was the most wonderful and kindest thing you could have done.
Incidentally, I have had the good fortune, through various pets I have owned, of knowing quite a few vets. I have never met one who has not been distressed by having no choice but to end an animal's life, even if it was the 'best thing to do.' I have found that quite a few are as saddened as the owners.
like now I'm seeing the second cnn debate about somebody on life support and they're debating pulling out the feeding tube. it's disgracefull that while we can't euthanize them, it's ok to make them starve to a painfull death. technicallities should not dictate basic morality. we all know removing the feeding tube is for the purpose of causing them to die, there's no sense in making it immensely painfull so we can say "well technically nobody killed her/him"
Lets say this patient is having a terminal illness.He can go for this operation but still have slim chnace of recovering.I have seen such cases where they have to make the choice of whether to give the operation and find out whther the risk was worthy of taking up.They can also forget about the operation.A form of euthanasia.
However,If one really is suffering in extreme pain,and there IS ABSOLUTELY NO chance of recovery,euthanasia may seem applicable in this situation.Still,suitable approval should be taken.These kind of decisions are very complicated ones and should be dealt with extreme care and concern.In this case,you cannot undo a wrong decision.
Me and Ajani once had to do a project on euthanasia.We read and different kinds of cases on how people were ended their lifes so as to end their suffering.
Even so,I do not have a concrete answer for that question.Sorry.
"May your faith in your religion and your self remain unwavering"
-Ar.Aid
I've always had mixed feelings about euthanasia, but I think part of that is that it is hard to feel good even in a small way when someone you love dies. I do believe, though, that my mom made the right decision - a decision she's had to make more than once. It's a shame that our pets can't tell us what they want, but my mom made the decision to ease their suffering.
gassho
-fa dao-
Something to think about, eh?
Palzang
??? So karma + sin -- it waits until you die to bite you on the arse?
I don't think so.....:rocker:
Every unAwakened being in the Thirty-one Planes of Existence suffers. It is the result of any conditional existence. This is the basis for the Buddha's teaching on the First Noble Truth:
"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress: Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful."
- Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
Some beings may suffer moreso, while others suffer not as much, but the vast and complex workings of kamma are only completely understood by a fully enlightend Buddha, so which one of us simple, un Awakened worldlings can really judge for sure what the exact fruits of our actions will be? The Buddha advised that such speculation should be left outside of our contemplations altogether, unless we merely wish to cause ourselves uneeded mental stress:
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
- Acintita Sutta
The most important thing we must try to remember about kamma is what the Buddha taught kama actually is:
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."
- Nibbedhika Sutta
Intention is kamma, and kamma is intention - that is why it is a subject that is fit for our frequent recollection:
"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...
"[This is a fact that] one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained...
"Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...
"A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one who is owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator; who — whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. To the extent that there are beings — past and future, passing away and re-arising — all beings are the owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and live dependent on their actions. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.' When he/she often reflects on this, the [factors of the] path take birth. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed."
- Upajjhatthana Sutta
It seems that all we can really do in our unAwakwened state full of greed, hatred, and delusion, is to do the best we can. By acting with good intentions while using the Noble Eightfold Path as our guide, we will surely build the virtue, concentration, and discernment needed to overcome our ignorance. How can we be sure? Well, the Buddha taught the world the kamma that leads to the ending of kamma, and that is no other than right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration (Ariyamagga Sutta).
The actions that were done in the past are better left in the past for it is only in the present moment that our kamma is made. What is done is done, and never to be done again, all that we can do now is continue to try and make more and more skillful decisions so that our future will be brighter.
It is only Nibbana that can end kamma, and not kamma itself.
Just some personal thoughts.
Jason
Oh!! OH!! I know that one!! Yay me!!
I have always been of the opinion, even before I came to Buddhism, that what we do with the intention of helping others, (be they animal or human), providing it is done with a loving and compassionate root, cannot be counted against us....
How often have I heard someone say 'I was only trying to help!' at the criticism or admonishment of others.... Throwing a good deed back in someone's face is just plain rude and nasty, and discourages further well-meant actions from that person..... and who can blame them, if all they're gonna get is a metaphorical slap across the face with a wet herring?
Just my quiet lil ol' two cents' worth.....
-bf
I am honored to meet an expert in the function of Karma. Do please instruct us in the precise functioning thereof. How would you know it is not the karma of the individual doing the dieing to pass by the hand of a merciful physician? How would you know it is not the karma of the physician to pull the plug?
Odd that the name of the one who knows the Acintita Sutra passage would be one called "elohim" -- but thanks nonetheless.
Medical Science has reached a stage where the meat-puppet can be kept ticking even when all other traces of sentient life have ceased. Can "life" be defined merely as "physical viability dependant upon radical medical intervention?" If so, I'll pass -- thank you.
FWIW,
I have a Living Will. Have no desire to "live" as nothing but a sack of meat wired into a hospital billing system. If it comes to that point, the docs have my prior instruction to poke me or unplug me.
gassho
-fd-
This thread engenders further questions, but until I hear from one of the mods, due to the political nature of those questions, I hesitate to bring them up.
Karma is a nightmare for me to try to understand.... so I try to live simply - and simplistically - and I adopt the dictum of "Doasyouwouldbedoneby".... I could really wrap myself in knots wondering if something I do in the Northern Hemisphere will gradually work its way South and affect someone in Tasmania.... And while I know we're all 'interconnected', we can, through too much analysis tie ourselves up in knots in so many clever ways!
Elohim is wise beyond his years... He knows more about the Sutras than most folks I know... I never cease to be amazed by his depth of knowledge... I have learnt a grreat deal from him, and his name means also 'Striving for Excellence".... or so I have read.....
as far as I'm concerned though, the name - any name - matters little... It's not who we are, it's what we do.....
What a good idea it is to make a living Will..... But I have heard of famuilies trying - and sometimes succeeding - in over-riding that persons' wishes.... it shouldn't be allowed.....
Thanks for such a thought-provoking post, TexZen......
Palzang
Palzang
We loved Jasper, there was no way we could inflict pain knowingly by not putting her to sleep, any more than inflict pain by keeping her alive-it was her time.
We explained to our children (Joshua 3 1/2 and Jessica 11 years old), about the cat and how sick she was, we all said a very tearful (especially for me) farewell. My wife took the cat in to the vet while I waited with the kids in the car. Yes I admit it-I was a woos! My wife came back with the cage with the dead cat inside, and we set off home.
Upon arrival, I moved the body into a suitable container for burial (black plastic is not good) and we held a funeral-a combination of christian and buddhist sayings were uttered by me -the MC if you like, of the ceremony. we placed our flowers and I backfilled the trench. The burial site is in a prominent place where Jasper used to sit during summertime.
We believe that killing something to prevent further pain, is more meritorious than allowing someone/thing to suffer further-isn't this what Buddha taught? to reduce suffering to all?
So my understanding is, euthanasia will help us to get to the other side and beyond by going in a peaceful way-this is also something that the Tibetan book of the Dead tries to highlight-death in a peaceful way-quietly. This is what I think people need to understand-assisting an animal or a human is a good thing.
P.S. this does not necessarily mean I agree with the death penalty-but then again.....
sorry to prattle on.
I guess the question boils down to whether or not we can allow ourselves to play god and end life when we see fit in the (perhaps unwarranted) belief that we are easing the suffering of the dying. I don't believe we have that right, quite frankly. And as for the death penalty, I mean really! Are you a Buddhist or what?!
Palzang
If I may, I would like to say a few things.
First, the Buddha did not teach people the Dhamma so that they could simply be morally aggressive and tell other people what is "right". Instead, he taught the Dhamma so that people could use their own ever growing discernment to decide for themselves what is "skillful".
"Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.'
"Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" - AN II.19
Secondly, the Buddha only taught the Dhamma to those that were willing to listen, he had no need or desire to convert those that were unwilling to listen to what he had to teach. Of course it is a Buddhist's duty to assist by giving advice when asked, as well as teaching by example, but by no means does that imply that we 'know' what is "right" or "wrong" for someone else. It also does not mean that we are expected to tell other people what is "right" or "wrong".
Every person's kamma (volitional action) is their own, just as every person's vipaka (result or fruit) is their own. Our foremost duty (those of us that consider ourselves "Buddhists") is to learn the Dhamma to the best of our ability while attempting to live our life in accordance with what the Buddha taught under the guidance of the Noble Eightfold Path - that is the only kamma that leads to the ending of kamma (i.e. Nibbana, Awakening, Liberation, Cessation, the Goal, etc.)
And lastly, while I usually really enjoy the open, light-hearted approach to learning Buddhism here, I also feel that people should utilized the words handed down to us by the Buddha a little bit more. All too often it appears that people simply state their own opinions and feelings on a matter thinking that it is in line with the Dhamma, however, do those opinions and feelings truly match up with what the Buddha himself taught? It is very important that we continually check our assumptions with the Suttas/Sutras that have been so wonderfully preserved for us. If not, we will end up with something quite different than the Dhamma-vinyana (Doctrine and Discipline) that was taught by the Buddha. Our defilements unceasingly undermine our efforts until they are completely and utterly abandoned.
"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve." - DN 16
For the very difficult situations we inevitability must face, such as euthanasia for example, we need to really look into what the Buddha taught about the precepts, the Noble Eightfold Path, and kamma. Only after careful study and contemplation should we then decide what is the best thing for us to do in any given set of circumstances. Each and every situation is different. No two situations are ever the same, even if they may seem to be 'similar'. Whatever one may decide to be the best course of action in one instance will not apply to the next - it will be a completely new situation with completely new kamma. Each moment is unique, therefore, developing our discernment through study and meditation is absolutely necessary.
This is not said to criticize anybody whatsoever, I simply wish to keep what the Buddha actually taught in perspective. I know that everyone has their own level of study and understanding, however, we should never forget that we can always improve. We should strive to develop our practice to the best of our ability.
Sabbe sattaa kammassakaa kamma-daayaadaa kamma-yonii kamma-bandhuu kamma-pa.tisara.naa.
Ya.m kamma.m karissanti kalyaa.na.m vaa paapaka.m vaa tassa daayaadaa bhavissanti.
Sabbe sattaa sabba-dukkhaa pamuccantu.
Sabbe sattaa sukhitaa hontu.
Jason
I am sorry for your loss.
I did not contribute to this discussion to agree or disagree with you. And to be succinct-I'd appreciate it if you would offer me the same courtesy.
Discussing the Death Penalty when we were originally discussing euthanasia-was perhaps the wrong thing to do on my behalf-but It was in the context of That killing someone/thing was a concept that I am unsure of.
My comment about the death penalty was actually, "this does not necessarily mean I agree with the death penalty-but then again..... " to be brutally honest I think I am unqualified to agree or disagree on the matter. I am unable to comment-just as much as you are as well-on such matters until we are faced with some event that challenges us to confront the subject.
Recently, a Vietnamese-Australian guy (23years old) was hanged by Singapore. He was a Drug Importer, user and seller and if the truth be known, a known criminal to police in Australia. Now, he had 400Grams of heroin attached to his body when going through Singapore Customs.
400gm is enough to kill 100 or so of our bright young youths here in Australia (one of them could well be my son or daughter).
a. He knew what he was doing-selfishly importing hard drugs.
b. He knew the penalty for drug importattion in Singapore-is DEATH.
c. I don't agree with the death penalty in general-but, I DONT LIVE IN SINGAPORE AND MAKE THEIR LEGAL DECISIONS.
Oh and By the way-you said,
"I agree, Simon. I am not in favor of keeping "meat popsicles" alive by any means. What a waste of resources! Plus it keeps the family in a continual state of grief and agony until they finally decide to pull the plug or the poor popsicle deteriorates beyond the point of even mechanical resuscitation. I also find abhorrent the way death is treated in not only this country, but most of the world. They try to pretty up the corpse like it's still alive and only sleeping and have the whole funeral spectacle. It's really disgusting.
Palzang"
A MEAT POPSICLE?? you comment on my words when you describe a human body/ human life in such disrespectful terms as this, then shame on you. I wonder how you would treat an animal in the same way? oh that's right-you let a cat die in what you considered to be a "peaceful" way-you DON"T KNOW IF THE CAT WAS OR WAS NOT SUFFERING!
If you know anything of feline health-which I doubt, Kidney failure in cats is the primary cause of death in old cats. Kidney failure in humans is a very painful and horribly stressful way to die. One would imagine that the cat/rat/mouse being somewhat anthropomorphic-similar to humans, would be in a substantial amount of pain -as well.
Perhaps one needs to work with the diseased and dying to gain some real understanding of euthanasia and associated issues. I do, but I still don't consider myself an authority on the subject.
thank you for my rant.
So I hope you will at least take the time to consider what I have said and perhaps take into consideraton that the teachings of Lord Buddha are actually based on reality.
Palzang
quarrels, disputes,
lamentation, sorrows, along with selfishness,
conceit & pride, along with divisiveness?
From where have they arisen?
Please tell me."
"From what is dear
there have arisen
quarrels, disputes,
lamentation, sorrows, along with selfishness,
conceit & pride, along with divisiveness.
Tied up with selfishness
are quarrels & disputes.
In the arising of disputes
is divisiveness."
"Where is the cause
of things dear in the world,
along with the greeds that go about in the world?
And where is the cause
of the hopes & fulfillments
for the sake of a person's next life?"
"Desires are the cause
of things dear in the world,
along with the greeds that go about in the world.
And it too is the cause
of the hopes & fulfillments
for the sake of a person's next life."
"Now where is the cause
of desire in the world?
And from where have there arisen
decisions, anger, lies, & perplexity,
and all the qualities
described by the Contemplative?"
"What they call
'appealing' &
'unappealing'
in the world:
in dependence on that
desire arises.
Having seen becoming & not-
with regard to forms,
a person gives rise to decisions in the world;
anger, lies, & perplexity:
these qualities, too, when that pair exists.
A person perplexed
should train for the path of knowledge,
for it's in having known
that the Contemplative has spoken
of qualities/dhammas."
"Where is the cause
of appealing & un-?
When what isn't
do they not exist?
And whatever is meant
by becoming & not- :
tell me,
Where is its cause?"
"Contact is the cause
of appealing & un-.
When contact isn't
they do not exist.
And whatever is meant
by becoming & not- :
this too is its cause."
"Now where is the cause
of contact in the world,
and from where have graspings,
possessions, arisen?
When what isn't
does mine-ness not exist.
When what has disappeared
do contacts not touch?"
"Conditioned by name & form
is contact.
In longing do graspings,
possessions have their cause.
When longing isn't
mine-ness does not exist.
When forms have disappeared
contacts don't touch."
"For one arriving at what
does form disappear?
How do pleasure & pain disappear?
Tell me this.
My heart is set
on knowing how
they disappear."
"One not percipient of perceptions
not percipient of aberrant perceptions,
not unpercipient,
nor percipient of what's disappeared:
for one arriving at this,
form disappears —
for complication-classifications
have their cause in perception."
"What we have asked, you have told us.
We ask one more thing.
Please tell it.
Do some of the wise
say that just this much is the utmost,
the purity of the spirit is here?
Or do they say
that it's other than this?"
"Some of the wise
say that just this much is the utmost,
the purity of the spirit is here.
But some of them,
who say they are skilled,
say it's the moment
with no clinging remaining.
Knowing,
'Having known, they still are dependent,'
the sage, ponders dependencies.
On knowing them, released,
he doesn't get into disputes,
doesn't meet with becoming & not-
: he's enlightened."
- Kalaha-vivada Sutta: Sn IV.11
I live by the precepts as I see them, if you do, then good for you as well.
If that in your mind makes me less of a Buddhist than you, then I can live with that.
cheers
Palzang
Palzang
With that said, some of you know I'm a nurse in the ICU. I see many people suffering on a regular basis. As Palzang noted in his experience, I've cared for ill and infirm and dying for quite a while. One night a family member of a patient came to me and asked me to give their loved one an injection to kill them (active euthanasia). I informed him that it was illegal and I couldn't do so. I was stunned that he asked but I understood where he was coming from in the sense that he didn't want to see his loved one suffer. It is a horrible thing to have to go through.
A few years back, I had to make a decision that no one ever wants to make. My twin sister had a massive brain hemmorhage. She wasn't brain dead yet, but it was coming. I knew from experience that she would not survive. The only thing that was keeping her alive were the machines of an ICU. Luckily, something told me to talk to her 2 weeks prior to the hemmorhage and I knew exactly what she wanted. She wanted to donate her organs if possible so we had to wait for brain death to occur. Even though it caused me quite a bit of suffering, I waited for the neurologist to pronounce brain death. It happened the very next day. As a nurse, I deal with a great deal of paperwork. When they handed me the paperwork to take my sister off the ventilator after they harvested organs, it was the toughest thing I ever had to do. I did it and don't regret it for one moment. I was not Buddhist at that time, but there was no chance of recovery.
Many people come to me as a nurse and ask what they should do with their loved ones. I am all for keeping someone comfortable if the prognosis is poor. Sometimes we get fooled and people make a partial recovery, but most of the time we are right and the person does pass away within a day after treatment is ended. So what I say to families is this. "You have to look in the mirror at yourself after you make this decision. If you can do that, then you have made the right decision". I don't know what a person's kamma is supposed to be. I know that if I don't do my job, my kamma goes to the negative side. Supporting loved ones and keeping the patient comfortable during the hardest time of their lives is the best thing anyone can do.
When the Buddha was alive, we didn't have all these fancy machines. They can work wonders. I was on all of it in January. I'm grateful for it as I would have died without it. But since you don't know the individuals involved, it's very difficult to say one way or another whether someone should be "let go". Technically, it is passive euthanasia. But morally, if they are dying and suffering, it's the kindest thing to do. I love when a doctor comes in and takes someone off a ventilator and has me start a morphine drip when they are terminal. It gives me a sense of peace that we've done right by the person.
Just my two cents worth. And Elohim, thanks for pointing out that we all could learn a bit more of the Dhamma. It's always a good thing to learn and listen to the teachings of the Blessed One.
Recently in my country, a debate over euthanasia has once again begun on its legalisation. All the major religious bodies save the Hindu have unanimously declared their lack of support for euthanasia, including the Singapore Buddhist Federation.
In retrospect, though, the position of the Federation is pretty much what Jerbear had said.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_298208.html
The AMD is essentially a medical directive in Singapore created quite a few years ago to allow a patient to decline being placed under the care of life-support machines and the like in the event of a terminal disease etc. ("passive" euthanasia)
So I think, that does it then.
It is said that when Godefroi de Bouillon took Jerusalem in 1099, he was asked how his crusaders should tell the difference between infidels and Christians as they were all dressed the same. His reply was: "Kill them all. God will sort out his own."
This is a solution that works only if we believe that there is only one life, this one, and that death is the end, followed by 'judgment, heaven and hell'.
To those who believe in rebirth/reincarnation, death is not an end but simply a passage to another life, does euthanasia end suffering?
It certainly does not end the suffering of those left alive:
+ the family and loving ones will have the process of loss and mourning;
+ just as importantly, someone or a team has had to carry out the actions which result in the death of the patient. These people, medical staff by and large, will carry the memory and the psychologico-spiritual wound that causing death can cause, let alone the effects of karma.
I have no answer to this question, even for myself. At one time, I had no doubts: I did not want 'heroic efforts' to be kept alive. Now, I am wondering if I have the right to impose the causing or permitting of my death on my family and medical attendants. The possible ending of my here-and-now pain does not, meseems, trump their continuing suffering.
Palzang
Things like incurable illnesses that cause great amounts of pain can even be unbearable for arahants, let alone the average individual, and it is absurd to expect that everyone should live up to some idealized standard of morality that is arbitrarily placed upon human existence or exhibit superhuman endurance. In addition, with respect to secular individuals and societies that do not subscribe to any religious beliefs that prohibit such actions, it is 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 are deemed to be sober and of sound mind, and I applaud Oregon and Washington for their allowance of physician-assisted suicide. In my mind, it is a personal choice that is the individual's alone to make. When it comes to animals, though, it gets a bit more complicated since we effectively kill them in order to end their suffering, and they have little choice in the matter.
http://www.religionfacts.com/euthanasia/buddhism.htm
I thought that the raising of the subject of seppuku, the ceremonial Samurai suicide, was interesting, as the bushido was to a certain extent influenced by Buddhist codes.
From this perspective, weight seems to be cast upon the merit of the family and medical staff in ending a specific form of suffering, that belonging to the Four Signs i.e. sickness. However, as Simon raised, should we really consider the ending of such impermanent suffering as good? The act of euthanasia would seem to just be an insignificant, hopeless move against the greater enemy of samsara. From this perspective then, no merit is gained if not bad karma. So Simon does raise a good point about our belief in the afterlife/rebirth that one must consider before we can say that euthanasia is valid.
But there is another quote from Professor Bhikkhu Dhammavihari, Director of the International Buddhist Research and Information Center that I thought really added onto the debate over whether "passive" euthanasia ought to be legitimized.
Okay, I think I can accept that. Of more note is how the text seems to emphasize, as Elohim did, of how one must be in the right state of mind at the time of death. Come think about it, even for a natural death, if one held hate or regret etc. etc. in his mind at his last breath, it was by tradition not skilful.
The karma to be written for the family and medical staff depends alot on the person on the deathbed's thinking before euthanasia. If one held the attitude that euthanasia would help him end all suffering, then the doctor who administered the euthanasia is deluded. (But not all doctors are Buddhists...) However, if one was to realize that this would only end this pain but still tie him to the laws of samsara, then maybe the doctor who administer it then, would have done a skilful act. But what do we do in cases where the victim cannot ask for euthanasia and is unconscious?
I can imagine some other perspectives though... If I am convinced that karma has to be repaid, that in my past life or now many bad deeds have I done, then the pain on the deathbed must be as long as possible and not be hastened to end, in order to "neutralize" the karma. If this is not correct, then I can see how a hypothetically skilful euthanasia can be the case: the patient is no longer capable of significant karma (other than him breathing in the air etc.), assuming that no words of his do any huge impact upon others etc. He is in effect, just waiting to go to another life; his entire bag of karma now will be the same as his entire bag of karma to be carried over when he dies naturally. With awareness of where euthanasia will lead him to, he asks for it.
Drats, it's really tough when I thought I'd be able to find adequate Buddhist reason for either perspective. Maybe this will be something from common law rather than civil law
Hey, know what? This is one of the times I deeply appreciate Buddhism for its tradition of meaningful discussion and debate.
What a truly scary thought. For what it is worth, I do not think that this is correct. We do not have to exhaust our negative kamma by letting it run its course. That is essentially the doctrine of the Jains. Theoretically, if we assume for the moment that all of the teachings on rebirth are true, then it would be statisitcally impossible to exhaust all of our negative kamma due to the fact that a beginning point to samsara, the cycle of birth and death, is not evident (SN 15.3). The Buddha's teachings, on the other hand, state that to gain release from samsara, one must put an end to all types of kamma, not just the negative, and this can happen at the moment of death. That is why the Noble Eightfold Path is called "the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma" (SN 35.145).
Ah, such a notion of karma as something to be "paid", though, as far as my observation goes, persists in some Eastern schools. I think it was a relic from the Hindu roots, where karma appeared to be like one-on-one; as a Chinese Buddhist book I read once illustrated of the phenomena of a human feasting on a lamb, "You eat me, I eat you." ad infinitum for all the human and sheep's next lives, where the sheep will be reborn as human and human as sheep. Similarly, I think the Thai acceptance of the ladyboy or kathoey comes from such a borrowed belief from the old roots of Buddhism: a boy is born with the mind and likes of a woman because he would have, in a previous life, made fun of women etc. Hence, his need to feel a belonging to the other sex was rationalized as a kind of karmic debt to be repaid.
The Chinese too like to talk of evil people dying badly and the virtuous leaving the world peacefully, but empirically, it isn't always the case!
But I think, Elohim, we will rather not interpret karma as good, or bad karma, but see it merely as but causations; seeds to an effect - of skill or not of skill. As such, karma isn't a debt to be repaid and yes, euthanasia would be less scary.
I sat with one old lady while she was dying of cancer. She, too, had refused all pain relief. She wanted to "unite her suffering with that of Christ on the cross, for the salvation of the world." There was no doubt that her body was suffering but her gentle smile and calm eyes, even after she was no longer able to speak, left no doubt that her mind was not.
One of the simply nasty things that some Han troops have done in Tibet is to remove the mummified bodies of those extraordinary monks who let themselves die, in retrest, to watch over localities and villages.
No aspect of our lives will match how we receive our death. We may (or may not) have embraced our birth - of that I have no memory. We have a chance to accept death as what it is, a natural end to this life and, perhaps, as Barrie put it, "an awfully big adventure".
Palzang
And who will "pull the plug", Pally? Are they not responsible for that action, irrespective of what you may have written in a 'living will?
To me, "pulling the plug" means letting nature take its course. That, imho, is a virtuous action. Keeping someone alive artificially on a machine when there is no hope for them, no brain activity even, is not a virtuous action. It is more akin to torture I'd say. It's more like a hell realm than a kindness. Certainly my teacher has recommended that we create these living wills. She's not a big fan of needless suffering either.
Palzang
I still have no answer to the puzzle.
In my view, there is no right or wrong answer even though the Buddha himself was clear about where he stood on these issues. The same applies to other religions and secular laws. If we look at it from the Buddhist perspective, for example, 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. 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 is 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 is written in stone. It is always up to the individual to weigh all options and their potential consequences before performing any action. In the end, sometimes our decisions depend more on what we feel than on what we are told is the right thing to do.
Jason