Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

India's top court allows 'passive euthanasia'

TandaTanda Explorer
edited March 2011 in Buddhism Today
Can't decide if this topic fits better with current events or general banter. But I feel one of Buddhists cardinal principle is touched in this live case.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/NewDelhi/SC-rejects-Aruna-Shanbaug-s-mercy-plea-for-death/Article1-670414.aspx

Aruna Shanbaug is a rape victim who is in coma since the time of attack for the the past 37 years. Her family abandoned her. But the hospital is willing and determined to take care of her as long as she will live. A friend of hers approached Supreme court with plea for mercy killing. Court decided that passive euthanasia is permitted but not active euthanasia.

I feel enabling one to die so that the pain can stop is also an act of compassion. Legalistic thinking is confounded by the problem of boundary line beyond which only mercy killing can be permitted. I remember an even when some boys had hit a snake with stone and were watching it suffer in pain. I decided and rode my bike's wheel on the snakes head and finished it with a feeling of compassion.

Comments

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    Can't decide if this topic fits better with current events or general banter. ...
    So you put it in 'Buddhism for beginners'... :rolleyes:

    Moved to current events.

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    If the hospital had not kept her alive, it's likely she would have died.
  • SherabDorjeSherabDorje
    Please define "passive euthanasia".
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited March 2011
    letting someone die, not assisting them to die. Like I said, without medical intervention she would have died, not been in a coma.
  • SherabDorjeSherabDorje
    This is generally allowed in the US, although the individual states have their own laws. As long as the legal guardian allows it, it is usually done. This controversy was best depicted in the case of Terri Schiavo in about 2003. I myself have had to participate in such a case as a nurse. I guessed that as long as the guardian had initiated it the karma did not fall on me, and it was up to me to alleviate pain. It was a little creepy though.
  • TandaTanda Explorer
    My reason for putting it in Buddhism for beginners is to have a discussion on killing. From this forum I understand that Buddhism is against killing whatever be the justification. I beg to differ. Not all situations in life are so black and white. This case is a strong example.
    Also Hindu thinking looks upon body as a means used by Atman. and Atma centric view okays killing in certain circumstances.(This has to be correctly understood and carefully interpreted)
    I think Shenbaug's body was sustaining a limited biological activity,like that of a lizard's severed tail twitching for quite some time after the lizard has abandoned it for its escape. In a way,body has a 'life' of its own. Human organs like eyes and kidneys etc extracted from cadavers do not 'die' when the 'owner' dies. They 'live' atleast for a few hours during which they are fit for translating.

    Something connected with the brain integrating with the rest of the body makes a living human. Doing anything that harms the integration is killing,imo.

    We do not know if Shenbaudg was experiencing nothing or experiencing immeasurable pain and anguish but unable to reveal it. In the former case it is not wrong to put her to sleep but in the latter case putting her to sleep would be an act of compassion.

    But Buddhism seems to be against any killing. Unable to agree
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited March 2011
    Buddhism doesn't have anything about a coma patient being supported by machines. It has a precept against the taking of life, not one forcing you to keep someone alive in a vegetative state until they die naturally. They've done more than enough, have shown compassion beyond need, there's no life being lived at this point. Why strive so hard against letting go? There's nothing to fear in death, and keeping her alive would be "idiot compassion" at this point as Ajahn Chah would say. Compassion without wisdom. Especially considering the timeframe; 37 years!

    It's not un-compassionate to let her die; it's clinging without need to keep her alive. We should have compassion for her friend who has suffered these past 37 years, badly enough to go the whole way to the Supreme Court to seek out a mercy "killing". There's a point where we just have to let go. It's best if we learn to do this long before something bad happens, by following the Buddha's path and seeing directly the impermanent nature of our reality.
Sign In or Register to comment.