'Condemned to a life of torture'

A place to discuss casual topics amongst spiritual friends.
Mawkish1983
Posts: 1285
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Essex, UK

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by Mawkish1983 »

Annapurna wrote:He should be given alternative treatments too, if he has to live, like, acupuncture, TCM, homeopathy, whatever it is.
Well I am sure my on-topic and inoffensive comment, abiding to the TOS, was removed in error, so I'll repeat it here.

I believe it would be a total waste of money to prescribe ineffective quack medicine to ANYONE. The fact that this man appealed for his right to die makes it an even bigger waste of money. The state decided he has no right to choose to die and will pay for his treatment, so to suggest he should be given (not offered, just given) this snake oil is an insult to the medical profession as a whole and the patient too!

"Oh, sorry, we're not allowed to let you die so we will treat you with sugar pills that will have no effect, thus leading to your death"? Why, then, waste the money?

And a note to the mods: you have my utmost respect but I will not participate in a forum where superstitious folk medicine is condoned but the scientific method is condemned.
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 wrote: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).
Hi, Cittasanto,

yes.

As I see it, laws are intended as a protection and should not cause more suffering.

Life-saving machines and life sustaining machines do not allow a helpless person to pass away, since we can always feed them through a tube, even if unconscious.

Like, Cittasanto, imagine someone has had an accident and fell into a coma, and is unable to drink and eat.

Still a hundred years ago this person would have died after a short time....their loved ones experiencing a sharp pain, but then it can heal.

Nowadays, unconscious people are often being kept alive, fed through a tube, the relatives can't let go, can't get over it, and their suffering seems to have no predictable end.

In the case of Tony, he would be dead by now, if medical staff had not saved him and would not continue to keep him alive, him, who would rather be dead.

I believe in free will.

It's such a difficult case.

Perhaps we need to see a case like this with the loving eyes of a mother, a spouse, to know in our hearts what is right.
I hope I will never be in this situation, not before I have become wiser than now.
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 »

Laws deal with both social & individual protection & sometimes they do not protect the individual the way the individual may wish to be protected, or someone from elsewhere thinks is appropriate!
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
waimengwan
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:22 am

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by waimengwan »

I wonder which is the lesser of two evils?

If this person ends his life with a peaceful state of mind due to someone helping him to die, he might get a better rebirth won't he. But that would mean this unfinished karma ( to suffer - for him to artificially ask to be killed) will carry on to the next life.

Or he dies when it is time for him to die, and that he could die with a lot of anxiety, pain and frustrations.
corrine
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:33 pm

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by corrine »

I have never understood why it is okay to artificially extend life even though the quality of that life might be gruesome, but it is not okay to help a suffering individual to end his/her existence if that is what they wish.

This whole heaven and hell thing is problematic. If such places exist, and no one who has not died really knows for sure, then why is it a good thing (heavenly) to force another living creature to suffer and a bad thing to help end that suffering? This is the problem that I have always had with religion. I did not know that Buddhism forbade euthanasia. I thought that the Buddha's entire intent was to ease suffering? I would appreciate someone wiser than I, explaining this to me.

I understand the concerns that others might wish to impose euthanasia upon those who may not wish it, but aside from that, is my life not my own? Is it not up to me to determine the path of that life, as long as I am not harming others? And when the quality of life has diminished to the point where I am no longer able to make a positive contribution to the world and have become a burden on society, and my life is no longer of any value to me, then should it not be my decision as to how it should end?

Yes, there are those who base their entire reasoning on this subject on their belief in a particular religion and its doctrine, but why should that control my life if my belief system differs?

I find it immoral to impose one's religious beliefs on others when it causes those others to suffer. Should the deciders at least be required to care for and pay for the care of, those whose lives they want to control?

corrine
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 »

corrine wrote:I have never understood why it is okay to artificially extend life even though the quality of that life might be gruesome, but it is not okay to help a suffering individual to end his/her existence if that is what they wish.
Your argument is based on several false premises:
  1. “No one who has not died knows if heaven or hell exist.” According to the Buddhist teaching, all of us have died before, many times, but we cannot remember our previous lives. You can only maintain that you do not know if heaven or hell exist, but you cannot possibly know that no one else knows. The Buddha (and some of his disciples) claimed that he did know. Knowing as he did, he prohibited his monks from practising euthanasia with the highest possible penalty — expulsion from the community. Even providing the means for a sick person to commit suicide or speaking in praise of suicide is the unwholesome kamma of aiding and abetting the killing of a human being, which is an offence of defeat for a monk.
  2. “Why is it a bad thing to help end that suffering?” This assumes that assisting suicide ends suffering. According to the Buddha's teaching, the only way to end suffering is to remove the causes — which are craving and ignorance. A precious human rebirth is a very rare opportunity to encounter the Buddha's teaching and put an end to the causes of suffering — or at least to reduce them and reduce suffering.
Its not our wish to impose our religious views on others. The choice always likes with the individual. We can only say what the Buddha taught — that to remove suffering we must remove the causes of suffering. Buddhists can and should advise people to avoid harmful behaviour, but what others do is always up to them. They alone must inherit the results of their kamma, and that applies also to those who assist in a suicide.

In the UK, the laws are made by parliament, and they should be applied equally to all. The costs of care for the terminally ill are to some extent borne by the state, but those who don't wish to terminate their life must also pay for their care costs, so the cost shouldn't be part of the argument when it comes to deciding what is legal and ethical.

Legalising euthanasia opens a whole can of worms. Anyone who doesn't wish to bear the financial and personal costs of caring for an elderly relative can claim that their relative wishes to end their life, or persuade them that they do wish to end their life because they are a heavy burden on their family. They can at least make sure that they never hear anything that might make them change their mind.
BlogPāli FontsIn This Very LifeBuddhist ChroniclesSoftware (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
User avatar
Jason
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: 'Condemned to a life of torture'

Post by Jason »

retrofuturist wrote: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. :)
I agree. Here's something I wrote about the issue of euthanasia in general if you're interested.
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
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 »

Hello all,

just wanted to inform, that the man in question has just passed away, it has been reported:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/goodbye- ... 24n6f.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:candle:
To the Buddha-refuge i go; to the Dhamma-refuge i go; to the Sangha-refuge i go.
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:Hello all,

just wanted to inform, that the man in question has just passed away, it has been reported:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/goodbye- ... 24n6f.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:candle:
May he fare Well
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