euthanasia

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

"The theistic faiths’ objection to any type of euthanasia is based on the belief in a life-giving, life-taking deity. Speaking with Buddhists on this issue, it seems that their objections to it (when they do object to it and by no means all do) are derived from the idea that killing is wrong because it is wrong in itself, it is intrinsically wrong. But my understanding is that this is not what the Buddha taught. For example to unintentionally and unknowingly kill something has no kammic consequences (vipaka) because it is not intentional. It is intention that makes an act moral or immoral. It is this point that needs to be kept in mind when thinking about euthanasia. I am undecided on the pros and cons of euthanasia but I do think the issue is much more complex and nuanced that the usual ‘it’s wrong’ stance."

http://www.bhantedhammika.net/essays/bu ... euthanasia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: euthanasia

Post by tiltbillings »

Zom wrote:
And maybe it is the animal's kamma to be euthanized, and it won't go to hell.
Maybe, we never know for sure. But euthanasia is certainly a dark kamma for one who performs it.
Actually, while you may believe it to be so, you don't know that it is so.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

katavedi wrote:The Vinaya deals with this issue more specifically than the suttas, as there are rules laid down in response to monks assisting or encouraging other monks (or laymen) to commit suicide in order to escape physical difficulty or inevitable death. Here is a good article on the subject. In case you don't want to read the whole thing, here are the salient points summarized at the end of the article:
(1) The Vinaya is a particularly important source for Buddhist ethics because ethico-legal issues receive a more detailed analysis in the Vinaya than in either the Sutta-Pi.taka or the Abhidhamma. The casuistry employed suggests parallels with Western moral philosophy, which often uses scenarios and hypothetical cases in an attempt to extract moral principles from different practical contexts. The sources reveal that, contrary to what is often asserted by Western commentators, early Buddhism does take a clear and defensible stand on controversial moral questions. This position, perhaps not unsurprisingly, turns out to be a conservative one.

(2) Although discussed in the context of monastic law, it seems fair to see the law here as defending what is fundamentally a moral value. In other words taking human life -- even one's own life -- seems to be wrong not because one is wearing an orange robe but because in the view of the texts the destruction of life is intrinsically immoral whether done by monk or layman.

(3) With respect to euthanasia, it would seem to be wrong to commit suicide; wrong to act as "knife-bringer" to someone seeking death; wrong to emphasize the positive aspects of death and the negative aspects of life; wrong to incite someone to kill another, and wrong to assist others in causing death. While we might wish for more detail in the individual five or so cases relating to euthanasia, they all seem to suggest that it is immoral to affirm that death is better than life.

(4) The prohibition on euthanasia does not imply a commitment to vitalism, namely the doctrine that life should be prolonged at all costs. Withdrawal from food and refusal of medical intervention when the end is night is not seen as immoral, since this is to do no more than accept death as an inevitable part of life.

(5) Finally, the views that are expressed in the texts are one thing. The importance that should be attached to the texts as sources for resolving moral dilemmas is another. It is possible to put forward the argument, for instance, that since these texts are embedded in a particular cultural and historical framework they have little relevance to modern Western societies. On the other hand, it may be felt that the views expressed in canonical texts should not lightly be set aside, and should at least be the point of departure for reflection on contemporary moral problems.
To contrast:

"One text that is often used in such discussions is this one from the Vinaya which seems to directly address the question of euthanasia. “If any monk (or nun) intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for a killer for them, or praise the advantages of death, or incites them to die saying, ‘What use is this wretched and miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life’, or with a similar idea, a similar purpose in mind, should in various ways praise the advantages of death or incite them to die, he is excommunicated and no longer within the monastic community.” (Vin.III,71-2). However, seen within its context, I feel that this text does not really contribute much to the euthanasia debate. Firstly, the origin story of this rule tells us that some monks encouraged a sick man to kill himself so that they could get up to mischief with his wife (Good God! That’s what some of the recruits to the Sangha were like then). Secondly, there is no suggestion that the man was terminally ill, that he had expressed the desire to end his life and the monks intentions in getting him to do so were clearly negative and without concern for the sick man. Thirdly, there are several passages in the Vinaya that stipulate clearly what a monastic’s role is and making it clear that monks and nuns should stick to that role and not stray into other roles. So the question of counselling a patient on the pros and cons of euthanasia or any medical questions is not a monastic’s job and he or she should have nothing to do with it."
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
GreatShield
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2015 1:53 am

Re: euthanasia

Post by GreatShield »

ryanM wrote:Ajahn Brahm has talked about voluntary euthanasia. In a dhamma talk that eludes my fanatical google searching, he recites an anecdote about someone who was in a similar situation. There, I think dog in this case, was suffering from cancer. They brought it to the vet, and the vet suggested they put it down because it was terminal. However, I think at Ajahn Brahm's advice, they asked the dog whether or not he was ready to go and believed that the dog wasn't ready to go. They deferred the suggestion of the vet based on this, and the vet said they were being cruel to the animal to make him suffer. The dog later turned out to later best the cancer. Ajahn Brahm suggests to seriously ask the animal whether or not their ready to go and go on that. This is what is meant by voluntary suicide. We shouldn't make these decisions on our own when it's someone else's life, right? Of course, anyone can poke holes in this, but I think it to be a good course of action. Seemngly caught between a rock and a hard place.

Be well!

Ryan
How would an animal respond to human speech though? What signs would I highlight when I ask a dying animal if he or she is ready to go through voluntary methods?
Healthy encounters my friend. :namaste:
SarathW
Posts: 21240
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: euthanasia

Post by SarathW »

tiltbillings wrote:
Zom wrote:
And we are not "just" talking about suffering. We are talking about suffering that comes toward the end and that can be excruciating.
But how you know that this suffering is not due to bad kamma? Maybe if you make euthanasia, the being will go hell and will suffer 100x more over there.
And maybe it is the animal's kamma to be euthanized, and it won't go to hell.
Hi Tilt
This is a ridiculous statement.
So you think Jews were put in to gas chambers due to their past kamma.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

Putting healthy people to death is not compassionate.
Euthanasia for people or animals who suffer tremendously, is a completely other thing.
Your statement is completely off.
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

I think one should also reflect on this:

http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practi ... -intention" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For me personally, it is totally incomprehensible how lay followers can eat meat and at the same time argue against a soft death for an animal (or human) out of compassion.

In law, there is such a thing as "conditional intent". When you eat meat, was there no conditional intent to kill?

When you let your pet suffer unnecessarily, was there no conditional intent?

I think we Buddhists cannot get away with simply saying "it's only intention that counts" and taking "intention" as a very straightforward thing:

From the link I gave above:

"We need to be aware of not just what we think are our intentions, but to dig deeper. This is something the Buddha himself stressed:

Having done a verbal action, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future.

Because the thing is, it’s not always easy to know our own intentions. It’s easy for us to fool ourselves."
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: euthanasia

Post by tiltbillings »

SarathW wrote:
Hi Tilt
This is a ridiculous statement.
So you think Jews were put in to gas chambers due to their past kamma.
Of course it is a ridiculous statement, just as it is absurdly ridiculous to say that it is the animal's kamma to die excruciatingly or to go to hell.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: euthanasia

Post by Zom »

Speaking with Buddhists on this issue, it seems that their objections to it (when they do object to it and by no means all do) are derived from the idea that killing is wrong because it is wrong in itself, it is intrinsically wrong. But my understanding is that this is not what the Buddha taught. For example to unintentionally and unknowingly kill something has no kammic consequences (vipaka) because it is not intentional. It is intention that makes an act moral or immoral.
But yes, Buddha taught exactly this way - intentional taking of life is intrinsically wrong. If you assert otherwise, please provide canonical citations. If you can't do that - this will be just your personal opinion, and not what Buddha has taught.

And from my side I can cite a passage where he says that killing may happen not only because of hatred or anger - but also because of ignorance (which is the case with euthanasia).

More than that - I can cite a sutta how an arahant (fully enlightened being) reacts to a desire of a man to kill himself because of harsh pain he experiences. And no - he doesn't offer euthanasia in this case, but gives an advice to strive for life. If you were right, then we could expect him say: "Ah alright, you can ask someone to kill you, or you can kill yourself, sure, why not". But this is not what we see in the texts.
Of course it is a ridiculous statement, just as it is absurdly ridiculous to say that it is the animal's kamma to die excruciatingly or to go to hell.
Nothing ridiculous in that.
Last edited by Zom on Wed Dec 23, 2015 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

Zom wrote:
Speaking with Buddhists on this issue, it seems that their objections to it (when they do object to it and by no means all do) are derived from the idea that killing is wrong because it is wrong in itself, it is intrinsically wrong. But my understanding is that this is not what the Buddha taught. For example to unintentionally and unknowingly kill something has no kammic consequences (vipaka) because it is not intentional. It is intention that makes an act moral or immoral.
But yes, Buddha taught exactly this way - intentional taking of life is intrinsically wrong. If you assert otherwise, please provide canonical citations. If you can't do that - this will be just your personal opinion, and not what Buddha has taught.

And from my side I can cite a passage where he says that killing may happen not only because of hatred or anger - but also because of ignorance (which is the case with euthanasia).
Of course it is a ridiculous statement, just as it is absurdly ridiculous to say that it is the animal's kamma to die excruciatingly or to go to hell.
Nothing ridiculous in that.
From the same article by a theravadin monk:

"So I maintain that while killing oneself or another is almost always motivated by negative intentions, that this is not always the case. Interestingly enough, this is a point confirmed by Buddhism. In the Mahayana tradition, it is said that the bodhisattva may even give his or her life for the sake of others. The most famous example of this is the story in which the Bodhisattva cut his throat so that a starving tigress could feed herself and her cubs. The very purpose of this allegory is to suggest that compassion and courage can cancel out self-concern, the craving to live and identification with the body.

It should be noted that in only one of the 548 Pali Jatakas does the Bodhisattva give his life for someone else. However, the Buddha does say (approvingly) that a friend may be devoted to another enough to give his or her life for them (D.II,187) more evidence that killing, in this case killing oneself, need not always be negative."

Please show me your passage.
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
User avatar
Ben
Posts: 18438
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:49 am
Location: kanamaluka

Re: euthanasia

Post by Ben »

Zom wrote:
Speaking with Buddhists on this issue, it seems that their objections to it (when they do object to it and by no means all do) are derived from the idea that killing is wrong because it is wrong in itself, it is intrinsically wrong. But my understanding is that this is not what the Buddha taught. For example to unintentionally and unknowingly kill something has no kammic consequences (vipaka) because it is not intentional. It is intention that makes an act moral or immoral.
But yes, Buddha taught exactly this way - intentional taking of life is intrinsically wrong. If you assert otherwise, please provide canonical citations. If you can't do that - this will be just your personal opinion, and not what Buddha has taught.

And from my side I can cite a passage where he says that killing may happen not only because of hatred or anger - but also because of ignorance (which is the case with euthanasia).
Of course it is a ridiculous statement, just as it is absurdly ridiculous to say that it is the animal's kamma to die excruciatingly or to go to hell.
Nothing ridiculous in that.
Yes, and he also said 'intention is kamma'. I don't recall the Buddha calling for the disbanding of the armies of the Monarchs who were his supporters, nor the rebuking those monarchs who used capital punishment.
I don't think it is quite as cut and dry as you are suggesting, Zom. I actually wonder about the kamma-vipaka of someone who is so concerned for his or her kamma than make a very hard decision. Doing nothing in the face of evil or intense suffering fearing the kammic consequences to me appears to be craven selfishness.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global ReliefUNHCR

e: [email protected]..
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

Zom wrote:
More than that - I can cite a sutta how an arahant (fully enlightened being) reacts to a desire of a man to kill himself because of harsh pain he experiences. And no - he doesn't offer euthanasia in this case, but gives an advice to strive for life. If you were right, then we could expect him say: "Ah alright, you can ask someone to kill you, or you can kill yourself, sure, why not". But this is not what we see in the texts.
Also show me that sutta, let's put all pieces together.
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
User avatar
Khalil Bodhi
Posts: 2250
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:32 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: euthanasia

Post by Khalil Bodhi »

It's a tough call and I have been personally facing just these kinds of issues recently. I think we need to do our best to follow the Teachings (to the best of our individual ability of course) as we can and look into our heart and see what our intention is so that, whatever we choose, we can do so with eyes wide open. :heart:
To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.
-Dhp. 183

The Stoic Buddhist: https://www.quora.com/q/dwxmcndlgmobmeu ... pOR2p0uAdH
My Practice Blog:
http://khalilbodhi.wordpress.com
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: euthanasia

Post by Zom »

From the same article by a theravadin monk:
Mahayana Jatakas are not a convincing argument for me, sorry. Please find a passage in Pali Canon.

As for the suttas I mentions, these are:

AN 10.174 (killing because of ignorance)
SN 35.87 (arahant reaction to another man's desire to kill himself because of pain)
Yes, and he also said 'intention is kamma'. I don't recall the Buddha calling for the disbanding of the armies of the Monarchs who were his supporters, nor the rebuking those monarchs who used capital punishment.
I don't think it is quite as cut and dry as you are suggesting, Zom. I actually wonder about the kamma-vipaka of someone who is so concerned for his or her kamma than make a very hard decision. Doing nothing in the face of evil or intense suffering fearing the kammic consequences to me appears to be craven selfishness.
Ben, do you think that an arahant can be selfish? I suppose not. By the way, killing others because of "compassion" in reality can also be a very selfish act - when you do this because you can't bear your personal mental pain seeing how another creature suffers.

Of course, the weight of kamma can be different, but still - no matter how you kill and with what intention you kill - this is still a wrong deed, which accumulates dark kamma.

Yes, some things in Dhamma are not "cut and dry". But killing is.
Last edited by Zom on Wed Dec 23, 2015 10:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Leon-nl
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: euthanasia

Post by Leon-nl »

Ben wrote: I actually wonder about the kamma-vipaka of someone who is so concerned for his or her kamma than make a very hard decision. Doing nothing in the face of evil or intense suffering fearing the kammic consequences to me appears to be craven selfishness.
I would even take it further: by acting that way one could possibly create (very) bad karma for him/herself.

I know, it is a completely different topic and another religion: but somehow I compare it with the majority of muslims who badly treat gays and lesbians "because it is in the koran". Also there, it is not that clear cut as those people want to make us believe and somehow I believe that those rigid people, who don't want to look at the suffering of others and show no compassion, *they* are the ones who are tested by god or, in this case (of euthanasia), will bear the kammic results.
Don't feel safe by following what you think are the rules.
“Look on the world as empty, Mogharāja, being always mindful.
Having removed wrong view of self, in this way one will cross beyond Death.
When looking on the world in this way the king of Death does not see one.” - Sn 5.15
Post Reply