'Condemned to a life of torture'

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

I realise the official position of Theravada Buddhism is that euthanasia is never OK, but the following makes me sad...

Condemned to a life of torture': UK denies right-to-die legal challenge
http://www.theage.com.au/world/condemne ... 24bya.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I wonder whether those who determined this official stance had considered the likes of folks like Tony Nicklinson who would, back then in the days of the anicents, probably already have died well before their situation and way of life became so dire.

As the poll on the aforementioned link presently stands, 95% of respondents feel he should be able to determine his own fate. When you take out the fraction of the 5% who said "No" automatically for dogmatic religious grounds (e.g. "sactity of life", "an affront to God"), those who, after giving forth due consideration would condemn him to continuing this hellish experience are very few and far between.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by reflection »

Buddhism isn't a religion that tells you what to do, so I think there is no "official Therevadan position". So I think we should use our own understanding in cases like this. In general I think euthanesia doesn't always have to be against the dhamma.

Also, while this case is much too far away from me to say anything specific about it, I think Buddhism doesn't have anything to say about what non-Buddhists should or shouldn't do anyway. Their choices should just be left to themselves. And so I think the law should allow it. If so, people with certain religious beliefs can practice their beliefs. Others who don't share it, can do what they think should be done.
Last edited by reflection on Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:28 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by cooran »

Hello Retro,

Not discusing this case in particular, but speaking in general - I don't think Theravada is opposed to some types of 'passive euthanasia'.

· non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the termination of life without the consent or opposition of
the person killed;
· voluntary euthanasia refers to the termination of life at the request of the person killed;
· active euthanasia refers to a positive contribution to the acceleration of death;
· passive euthanasia refers to the omission of steps which might otherwise sustain life.


with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
Bhikkhu Pesala
Posts: 4644
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by Bhikkhu Pesala »

Who knows what the future holds for him?

If he could commit suicide he might fall straight into hell. If he remains conscious and able to read or at least listen, then he has a precious opportunity to understand the Dhamma.

There are also precedents for people recovering from "locked-in syndrome."

Just a few months later, however, Mr Miles left the medics 'utterly bewildered' by taking his first faltering steps.

Kerry Pink was paralysed and unable to speak for 18 months, but she was able to hear what was going on around her.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Alobha
Posts: 565
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:27 pm
Location: Germany

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by Alobha »

I know of a case where a family father got a heart attack at night, his wife and daughter tried to keep him alive for more than half an hour until the ambulance arrived. He survived but eyes closed, seemingly unconscious and very severe braindamage. The only reactions of his body are moving when in pain. Euthanasia is not allowed here and now the family is facing the situation, where he will be moved to a coma-facility costing 2000€+ per month, basically making the family bankrupt. Everybody involved knows that he would never give his permission to living like this, nor to put such an incredible emotional and financial burden on his beloved family. Now he can't interact with people but only feel pain.

edit: Yes, a case in Germany @Annapurna. My best friend knows the whole family and knew the father personally, too. Nursing homes for coma patients are not paid for by health insurance in all cases as it seems and relatives are expected to pay, even more so since the family owns a house. It's not yet totally clear what they will do and how it will end financially. Maybe they will find a possibility to not pay 1000€+ a month for nursing.
Last edited by Alobha on Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by manas »

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Who knows what the future holds for him?

If he could commit suicide he might fall straight into hell. If he remains conscious and able to read or at least listen, then he has a precious opportunity to understand the Dhamma.

There are also precedents for people recovering from "locked-in syndrome."

Just a few months later, however, Mr Miles left the medics 'utterly bewildered' by taking his first faltering steps.

Kerry Pink was paralysed and unable to speak for 18 months, but she was able to hear what was going on around her.
Greetings Bhante,

I'm not sure if you were implying that he might fall straight into hell as a possible result of committing suicide per se. But to clarify that issue, isn't it intention that is the most important factor in kamma? In an ordinary, run-of-the-mill suicide, the state of mind of the person could be any number of things, such as hatred for oneself, or for others. But as I understand it, this man does not hate himself, or anyone else; he just wishes to avoid pain - a state of mind that many of us can relate to. I can envisage his parting state of mind as one of gratitude towards his doctor, and of love for his family etc as he says farewell with them at his side, rather than a mind of anger or hatred. I don't see why he should go straight to hell, with any more likelihood than an ordinary person might, after having lived an ordinary life of seeking pleasure, and trying to avoid pain. Because most people do just that their entire lives anyway.

respectfully,
manas :anjali:
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by Annapurna »

Alobha wrote:I know of a case where a family father got a heart attack at night, his wife and daughter tried to keep him alive for more than half an hour until the ambulance arrived. He survived but eyes closed, seemingly unconscious and very severe braindamage. The only reactions of his body are moving when in pain. Euthanasia is not allowed here and now the family is facing the situation, where he will be moved to a coma-facility costing 2000€+ per month, basically making the family bankrupt. Everybody involved knows that he would never give his permission to living like this, nor to put such an incredible emotional and financial burden on his beloved family. Now he can't interact with people but only feel pain.
A case in Germany? With all the social security in such cases, with health insurance paying?

Are you sure they would go bancrupt...?

I don't think our system allows that. I'm pretty sure they can keep an amount to live, and the rest is covered by the institutions...
Everybody involved knows that he would never give his permission to living like this, nor to put such an incredible emotional and financial burden on his beloved family. Now he can't interact with people but only feel pain.
That's why a "patient's declaration" is recommended, where people can state black on white which kind of life sustaining or prolonging methods they don't want to receive...
I
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by Annapurna »

Our doctors are in a dilemma:

They have to do the oath of Hippokrates "Nil nocere", never harm.

They have the legal obligation to do all they can to save lives, even if that means that the patient will remain badly handicapped thereafter.

They can get sued if they do not fight death will all that is at hand.
And so they do, -because they have to. Knowing the person will have large handicaps...

They have to bring patients back to life, who would not have survived still 50 or 30 years ago.

There is a lot that needs to be done here.

Like, if he may not die, he should be taken out and someone else be his legs and arms and go to a lake with him and watch ducks and swans and enjoy the sun and make his suffering less. Paid by the state who rules he must live.

He should be given alternative treatments too, if he has to live, like, acupuncture, TCM, homeopathy, whatever it is.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by Cittasanto »

Annapurna wrote:Our doctors are in a dilemma:

They have to do the oath of Hippokrates "Nil nocere", never harm.
That isn't in the oath, it is derived from the oath and found in a text from the 1800's but the exact phrase does not mean that
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

the oath was modernised in the 1960's and here are the two versions
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippo ... today.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; [edited to the link used by the BMA]

The Oath refers to not deliberately causing them to get worse and to always have an aim to promote health or keep stable,although they can prescribe medicine which will quicken death if it is for the benefit of the patient! i.e. the patient is approaching death regardless of what they can do and the more important care for them is pain relief.
I am speaking for here, not in a global scene though.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Annapurna
Posts: 2639
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by Annapurna »

Cittasanto,

not to get all TOO nitpicking, but the Hippocratic Oath includes the promise "to abstain from doing harm" (Greek: ἐπὶ δηλήσει δὲ καὶ ἀδικίῃ εἴρξειν) but does not include the precise phrase.

But to "abstain from doing harm" and "nil nocere" is absolutely the same in meaning, if you know Latin.

But perhaps it was taught differently in the medical university you went to.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Annapurna,
I am sorry I have simmply looked at the ethics of the Parajika rule and this very situation described in the OP from multiple angles.
As one medical ethicist put it
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7654432.stm]Dr Daniel Sokol, Director of the Applied Clinical Ethics (ACE) programme at Imperial College, London[/url]. wrote:The Oath continues: "And I will use treatments for the benefit of the ill in accordance with my ability and my judgement, but from what is to their harm and injustice I will keep them."

In other words, doctors should act in the best interests of their patients, and when unjust circumstances arise - for instance, a certain life-prolonging drug may not be available on the NHS - they should strive to correct the injustice harming their patients.
Being informed about ethics in medicine does not necessarily mean one has to undergo medical training at university, however the scope of interest (be it ethics or medicine itself) is delved into as the need to understand and find workable solutions are pressent.

Regarding the precept as my understanding has it, it does not dictate that one should force life upon someone. Deliberately killing them is (obviously) a breach, although allowing them to pass-on in accord with nature - when there is nothing else to be done for their benefit - is not necessarily a breach.

If one has a direct say in the life and death decision the best possible answer to stay in-line with the precepts is possibly "do what is best for the patient".
If you know that that may mean treatment is withheld due to the detrimental effects through a sufficiently reduced quality of life and life would be unbearable I do not believe it is a breach of any precept - medical or otherwise - to allow the person to die with dignity (passive euthanasia).
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
manas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by manas »

Deliberately killing them is (obviously) a breach, although allowing them to pass-on in accord with nature - when there is nothing else to be done for their benefit - is not necessarily a breach.
I wonder how the law stands in relation to a fully conscious and mentally fit person with a terminal or otherwise unbearable and incurable illness simply refusing food, and only accepting water, along with medication to manage the pain of starvation. That would be one way to legally 'exit' one's life, without having to drag one's doctor or loved ones into it, surely?
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by Mr Man »

"Now I would like to talk about the way that the sick and diseased should prepare themselves for death. When one knows that death is inevitable, such as when suffering from a terminal disease like tuberculosis, one should make the very best of it with mindfulness and self-awareness, without cowardice or fear.

I'd like to relate to you an account I once came across of the way that people in the time of the Buddha prepared for death. For those who kept the Precepts of Virtuous Conduct fasting was not at all difficult because they were used to abstaining from an evening meal on Uposatha days. When their illness reached the point that they felt that they had no more than ten days left to live they would stop eating. Not like us. These days, if someone is close to death we go out and look for the most expensive and delicious foods, so that some people even die prematurely from the food. Their efforts to avoid food were for the purpose of having a mind completely undisturbed. When the body starts to run down it loses its ability to digest food and so anything consumed turns to poison, making the mind restless and confused.

So they prepared themselves for death by abstaining from food and taking only water or medicine. As death got closer, they would stop taking even water or medicine in order to focus their mindfulness and self - awareness, so as to die in the way of remainderless extinction."

From "Heartwood from the Bo Tree" Ajahn Buddhadassa

http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/books" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... o_tree.htm
User avatar
piotr
Posts: 412
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Khettadesa

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by piotr »

Hi,

Here's documentary on euthanasia by Terry Pratchett:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slZnfC-V1SY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Bhagavaṃmūlakā no, bhante, dhammā...
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by Cittasanto »

manas wrote:
Deliberately killing them is (obviously) a breach, although allowing them to pass-on in accord with nature - when there is nothing else to be done for their benefit - is not necessarily a breach.
I wonder how the law stands in relation to a fully conscious and mentally fit person with a terminal or otherwise unbearable and incurable illness simply refusing food, and only accepting water, along with medication to manage the pain of starvation. That would be one way to legally 'exit' one's life, without having to drag one's doctor or loved ones into it, surely?
see each countries policy on suicide, although that sound like assisted suicide considering there is medical help to alleviate the pain around the method of ending ones own life.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Post Reply