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.
Does a vet break the first precept?
Bunks
Australia Veteran
My mate is a vet. He told me that his main job these days is to "put down" old and sick animals.
Is he breaking the first precept?
Is he breaking the first precept?
0
Comments
My sister's girlfriend's dog recently fell very ill. They brought him in right away, and he was found to have a tumor that had burst on his spleen. There was no way to save him, not even surgery, so he was put down to end his obviously very painful suffering. To me, there is a difference in that compared to an owner who puts a pet down because they are moving, because they cannot afford pet care, etc. If you can't afford to put some savings away for emergency vet care, maybe you shouldn't have a pet. I would imagine the karma on that is split, too in some way, as it is the owner who makes the decision to put the pet down and the vet provides the service, so to speak.
As always, intention is a big part of this in my opinion. But then you have to ask if we are causing future life problems for the being/animal if we do not allow them to experience their suffering.
If you asked "is it compassionate or plain old killing," then I think we've got something.
Thinking about it, I think it does matter @Invincible_summer. If my friend is doing something that is going to send him straight down to the lower realms (whether he's a buddhist or not!), should I not mention it to him?
Has every human alive today been born human because they followed the precepts in their previous life?
If every human who breaks the first precept is born to a lower realm, where will all the babies come from?
Do you want others imposing their religion on you?
I think he would be morally wrong if he chose, because of fear for his future life, to watch an animal suffer instead of helping to end it's suffering.
Like JW's withholding blood from sick or injured children because of weird religious views.
I think that would be unskillful. If he's not a Buddhist (and not even all Buddhists would agree with you), he would definitely not understand and maybe even think you're a bit strange, or that your belief system is strange.
Would you go on a campaign to tell all people with jobs under "wrong livelihood" that they would all be reborn in the lower realms, so they better repen... err... get their lives on track so they'll have a better rebirth?
Although the bodhisattva vow talks about saving all sentient beings, I don't think proselytizing is what the writers had in mind.
This is based on the jataka tale of how in one of his previous lives, the Buddha was on a boat with 99 other people and there was a murderer among them and from his clairvoyance, Buddha could see that the murderer would kill everyone on the boat. Out of compassion, the Buddha then killed that murderer. As a result, though his motivation was pure, he had to go to hell for it, even though it was only for one day.
I do not know what is the best thing to do - whether to let an animal or even a human being suffer or euthanise them. I guess if the suffering is so terrible that i would go to hell as a consequence of euthanising them, then at least it is doing it knowingly. I know pet owners who just euthanise because they don't want to deal with protracted vet bills. I guess in the end, karma will be the ultimate judge.
Well, there was an Ajahn Brahm dharma talk on youtube that dealt with putting animals down (Sorry, I can't remember the title atm). He talked about how if you are really connected to your pet and you listen, then you will know when the time has come to put them down and "out of their misery". He said you have to wait for your pet to tell you that they're ready... but you will know. I think there is a certain kindness in the practice as well.
It is a problem with every religion, where people come to see the rules as sacred and more important than the suffering beings they're designed to help. As if four or even four-hundred rules can contain and define the Dharma's message in action.
"Help all beings." And if the only help you can give is to end terminal suffering, then you're still living the Dharma.
I was pondering how to express this - thank you!
Perhaps the difference between addressing your suffering and addressing the suffering of the subject.
But you can't break a vow that you didn't take to begin with. However, just because you aren't buddhist and haven't take the vow, does not absolve you of the making of bad karma.
We accept that sometimes "harm" is caused in the course of doing good. Why is the vet any different? For example I just had surgery and technically the doctor cut me and hurt me. The anesthesiologist gave me drugs that made me sick for the whole day. But they still did me more good than harm. Every day I prick my son's finger at least 4-5 times and make him bleed. Then I poke him 4 times with needles. He doesn't enjoy it, it clearly hurts him as it makes him bleed. Is this still harm when done for his good?
As far as telling the vet, I'm not sure what would have good results. You could try, I suppose, if you are truly worried. But if he is not a Buddhist and has his own beliefs, he likely isn't going to respond well to being told "hey, but putting down sick and injured animals you might send yourself to hell realms." I know I do not take kindly to people tell me I'm going to hell for not believing what they do. Even if they mean well, it is offensive and makes me not want to spend time with those people anymore.
Moving on to putting a pet down at the vets, my view is putting down an animal interferes with the natural course of the animals kamma and adds negative kamma to both owner and vet (owner for making the decision and/or putting the responsibility on the vet). If the choice to put the animal down was that of compassion due to the animals suffering the impact of kamma would be greatly less then out of ill intent but no matter what it still generates negative kamma.
I could be completely wrong tho
This is a pretty personal topic for me, because my dog is 18 years old. All things considered, she is doing pretty well, yet I've been seeing a slow but steady decline. I would be shocked if she made it through the year to be honest. There's a good chance that at somepoint I'm going to have to make the decision to end her life. It would be wonderful if she could pass peacefully in her sleep, but there's a strong likelyhood that that won't be the case. I don't know what are the workings of her good and bad karma, all I know is that in this life that we share together, I am responsible for her well being. To allow her to linger on when she has no decent quality of life left, is frankly, inhumane.
I have taken a pet to be put down. She was hit by a car, two broken front legs and a possible broken pelvis. I sat with her all night after it happened. There wasn't a doubt in my mind that it was the kind thing to do.
But, he is a very intelligent open minded person so I will probably breach the topic with him at some stage just out of interest.
In fact, I am having lunch with him on Monday so may discuss it then.
Wasn't there someone on here training to be a vet?
In some cases, yes, if it is what someone wishes and they are capable of understanding their decision, then I think it should be legal. In other cases it is much more sticky, such as someone without their wishes known, or children. But I think it is also a situation easier to judge if you have not been in the spot. I know people who suffer pain you cannot imagine, day in, day out, for years at a time. There is no solution to their pain, no treatment or cure and they spend all day long suffering every moment. To know the extent of their pain and suffering, it is not something any of us would wish on our pets.
It is a question each person has to answer for themselves, and it is up to you to be responsible and make that decision known to the best of the legal ability so that your family is not faced with it later. I am 37 and my husband is 29. We have both already taken care of it and we revisit it often to make sure things are clear. It would not be fair for me to expect him to know what I want in my care and death without telling him straightforward.
My heart goes out to you for your dog of 18 years... i have had two dogs pass away and i still miss them (yes attachment smattachment!
But anyways... now that I know that little bit, I feel like I can answer the question. I don't really view it to be breaking the first precept, especially since it appears that he is not a Buddhist. Talking about a situation in which the animal is suffering and sure to die, it seems the compassionate thing to do. I do feel the same way about people, btw. I don't feel that I can judge what it's like to be in that situation, so I don't pretend to. If a person feels that their suffering is so great that their time is up, who am I to tell them differently? I just hope I am never in that situation. Either side of it, really.
They illuminate the Buddhist path, mimic enlightened action and are not to be dallied with but the spirit of their intent is what is really important.
When in doubt, meditatively ask yourself if an action manifests as compassion, love and wisdom or as greed, hate & delusion.
I don't think people put down their pets as an easy way out. Typically they only do that when they see the animal is suffering, and the animal gets a diagnosis from the vet. People love their pets, and are not cavalier with their lives. Probably in 99% of cases they're motivated by love and compassion for their animal friends. Putting a pet down isn't a decision taken lightly, and is always, in my observation, accompanied by grief. Knowing a sentient being is in unbearable pain, yet doing nothing to end the suffering, is not an option for a loving owner.
I completely agree. In my case, my mother didn't make the decision lightly, but it also wasn't something that came on overnight. He was old and she had been expecting it to happen for a long time. He just couldn't lift himself anymore... what could you do? It was cold and he couldn't even survive outside. *shrugs*
That's amazing about the puppy thing though. I didn't realize you could do something like that. How cool.
For example, I believe (as do most Mahayanists) that it's possible a person can assist another in dying out of compassion or other skillful (read 'morally blameless') mental states. That doesn't mean it's right (or even wrong for that matter) in any objective sense, but then, I'm not much of a moral absolutist. What I do think, however, is that the intentions behind our actions can influence how we experience the results of those actions.
In other words, it's not simply the utility of an action that must be taken into consideration, but the motives behind the action as well. In cases like these, euthanasia may not be the most skillful or wholesome course of action, but I don't think it's equivalent to killing out of anger, hate, jealousy, or other, more blatantly unskillful states of mind.
Just my two cents.
As for one being the "owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and having their actions as their arbitrator" (AN 5.57), that's a completely different question, albeit a related one, which I attempted to address by the rest of my reply: Figured that much was obvious.