Page 1 of 11

euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:01 pm
by Buckwheat
kalyanamitta,
I am witnessing a suffering, dying animal. Which sutta/vinaya deal with euthanasia?

metta,
Scott

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:09 pm
by katavedi
Hi Buckwheat,

In Snp 2.14 (Dhammika), the Buddha lays out the householder's practice (about halfway through the sutta. Here's a relevant excerpt:
Kill not any beings nor cause them to be killed,
and do not approve of them having been killed,
put by the rod for all that lives—
whether they are weak, or strong in the world.
Here's another translation of the same verse, by Saddhatissa:
Let him not destroy life nor cause others to destroy life and, also, not approve of others' killing. Let him refrain from oppressing all living beings in the world, whether strong or weak.
I know that this is a difficult situation to be in. I was in a similar situation a few years ago when our aged cat was dying. Some thoughts that I had at the time were:

1) Are thoughts about putting her down arising because I can't be present with her suffering? Is it really my own pain that I want eased?

2) Is there anything unnatural about a being dying, even painfully? In nature, it's certainly the rule for animals, rather than the exception, to endure the discomfort of dying. In other words, "Is there something wrong with letting her go through the dying process? Is it a situation I need to control?"

3) If this were a human being, a family member, what decision would I make?

Our cat could no longer walk or eat or drink. We would find her lying in her urine, because she couldn't get to the litter box. Ultimately, we decided to let her die naturally, but surrounded by love. We made her a little bed and one of us stayed by her side all the time until she died, just petting her and talking to her. Our daughter, who was five at the time, participated as well. It was a good lesson for her to see a being die and to see it as a natural and normal process.

I wish you the best, my friend.

With metta and compassion,
katavedi

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 3:18 pm
by ryanM
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

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:10 pm
by Zom
I am witnessing a suffering, dying animal. Which sutta/vinaya deal with euthanasia?
Active euthanasia is killing, just that simple.

All people suffer. Should we kill them all, so they won't suffer anymore?

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:27 pm
by katavedi
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.

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 7:38 pm
by SarathW
Buddhist term for this is Vibhava Thanha.
The desire to terminate the unpleasant.

Euthanasia is killing!

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:01 pm
by tiltbillings
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=23927 A thread on animal euthanasia. And, of course, opinions vary.

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:10 pm
by Ben
tiltbillings wrote:http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=23927 A thread on animal euthanasia. And, of course, opinions vary.
Indeed they do, thankfully.
An absolutist approach to an extremely difficult situation is neither helpful,appropriate, nor for that matter, compassionate.

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:28 pm
by Khalil Bodhi
Our aged cat is dying of cancer as we speak. We have had all of our friends, family and the vet tell us to humanely put her down but it just seems like killing. This is our own interpretation of the Dhamma but it has been important to hold to our precepts throughout. Wishing you and your beloved pet freedom from pain and suffering.

Mettaya,

KB

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:47 pm
by SarathW
Hi KB

Anumodana.
May your love and care ease the pain of your cat.
:anjali:

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:48 pm
by Khalil Bodhi
SarathW wrote:Hi KB

Anumodana.
May your love and care ease the pain of your cat.
:anjali:
Thank you Sarath!

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:13 pm
by DNS
Hi KB,

I also hope she has little to no pain and does not suffer too much. And may she have fortunate rebirth. :heart:

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:40 pm
by Anagarika
The precepts are training rules. To violate the First Precept, one's intention is at issue. By any act (kamma) we are kammic owners and heirs of that action. So, it's difficult to say in any given case whether euthanasia is appropriate or ethical. The ethics of the act depend on the circumstances, IMO, and the actor inherits the kammic consequences of the act of assisting in the passing of another living being.

If a beloved dog or cat is suffering terminally, and death is inevitable, then isn't it true that the act of euthanasia is borne of compassion, or empathy, and wisdom? Is it not wise to spare a living being suffering, when no value is gained from the suffering, and the witnesses to the abject suffering are traumatized?

If a monk were to facilitate an act of human euthanasia, the rules state that the monk is to be disrobed. That rule makes sense; all of the Vinaya rules derive from a fact pattern to which the Buddha was exposed. But, to take the precepts and turn them into a black and white application of ethics, in my view, turns the precepts from a kamma-centered training rule into a sterile ordinance, a 10 commandments based system that sends the disobedient to hell. I do not believe that this is the nuanced, complex integrated system of kamma/DO/rebirth that the Buddha taught.

Reasonable and compassionate people will disagree with my position. If any of my beloved pets were to contract a terminal disease, and were suffering without hope of recovery, I'd be willing to accept the kamma of agreeing to a peaceful medical euthanasia. How that affects my rebirth is on me. If the act is done with wisdom, empathy and compassion, then I might be comfortable assuming a reasonably good rebirth, assuming all of my acts done in this life have been reasonably wholesome and compassionate.

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2015 11:58 pm
by SarathW
So Angarika,
Do you think animal life is less important than human life?
:(

Re: euthanasia

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 12:26 am
by Khalil Bodhi
David N. Snyder wrote:Hi KB,

I also hope she has little to no pain and does not suffer too much. And may she have fortunate rebirth. :heart:
Thanks Dr. S! It means a lot!