Question on Euthanasia (mystic, tradition, choice, mission, experience)

[Scarlett Wampus]

Could Euthanasia ever be considered appropriate? The reason I ask is this: recently in a Buddhist chat room I saw a woman ostracised for having had her sick cat put down. The reason given for this was that she had denied her cat the chance of living out its karma.

What do you think of situations such as this?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

Could Euthanasia ever be considered appropriate? The reason I ask is this: recently in a Buddhist chat room I saw a woman ostracised for having had her sick cat put down. The reason given for this was that she had denied her cat the chance of living out its karma.

What do you think of situations such as this?

Absolutely.

I support both active and passive euthenasia with proper consent. It makes no sense at all to allow a being to continue suffering when death is inevitible.

[Scarlett Wampus]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Absolutely.

I support both active and passive euthenasia with proper consent. It makes no sense at all to allow a being to continue suffering when death is inevitible.

Oh I agree AE, but then I do not believe in karma (as something concerning individuals rather than the whole) nor rebirth.

[MysticSang'ha]

It's cases like these that understandably assumes Buddhist ethics as wildly cold and insensitive, because I believe that certain forms of euthanasia are unhealthy means of dying, and that euthanizing dogs, cats, etc. before they naturally live out their karma is wrong.




The Tibetan tradition discusses quite frequently the science of death, and how we can best prepare to have a peaceful and joyful passing from this life to the next. Blatant interference with this passage does not allow for the dying person to have the ideal experience, which should be fully awake and aware of his/her passage.




However, since euthanasia has different camps (voluntary, involuntary, active, and passive), here is the short list of the definitions and my own attitudes as a Buddhist toward them:




Voluntary - where death is hastened by the individual himself or herself
Involuntary - where the individual is in a vegetative state (like a coma) and others make the decision to hasten death for him or her
Active - the means of allowing death to the individual by active means, such as a legal injection
Passive - the means of allowing death to the individual by passive means, such as removing life support and disallowing resuscitation so that natural death occurs




Just like any other community, Buddhists have varying positions on the recent bioethics issues that have come up. We're still trying to fully understand and debate all possibilities with most compassion toward the individual. At this point, however, I can only agree with passive euthanasia as a healthy means of dying, and that active euthanasia (despite the intentions to act compassionately in the short term) overall is an unhealthy way to die.




Peace,
Mystic

[ladyhawke]

Not to long ago in the uk physician assisted death was debated in the house of lords and it was'nt passed ...its been an ongoing debate due to a very brave lady called Diane Pretty she had Motor Nurone Diease and wanted to die with dignity for her that meant choosing how and when she died,i also feel that the choice should be up to the individual when you are diagnoised with a terminal illness pain and suffering is no way for your life to end and takes its toll on those who love you as well as the individual.

As far as i'm aware Switzland is the only country in the world where you can go as a non resident and take part in assisted death ,Now would'nt it be better for the people who feel that this is the way they want to die to be able to do it in there own country?,its a fine call between assisted death and murder,but if like Diane Pretty you are strong enough in your own mind to take the right to die to court,i think it speaks volumes and she should have had that choice.

Euthanasia: the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. (The key word here is "intentional". If death is not intended, it is not an act of euthanasia)
Voluntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed.
Non-voluntary: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent.
Involuntary euthanasia: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary.
Assisted suicide: Someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called "physician assisted suicide
Euthanasia by Action: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection.
Euthanasia By Omission: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water

[Scarlett Wampus]

Originally Posted by MysticSang'ha

It's cases like these that understandably assumes Buddhist ethics as wildly cold and insensitive, because I believe that certain forms of euthanasia are unhealthy means of dying, and that euthanizing dogs, cats, etc. before they naturally live out their karma is wrong.

Aye. A trouble I have with rebirth is the lack of reliable evidence for it. For this reason I don't subscribe to the view that people suffer because of karma from past lives.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

Could Euthanasia ever be considered appropriate? The reason I ask is this: recently in a Buddhist chat room I saw a woman ostracised for having had her sick cat put down. The reason given for this was that she had denied her cat the chance of living out its karma.

What do you think of situations such as this?

I understand the Buddhist philosophy behind this. In that particular case, I imagine the Buddhist reasoning would be "The cat was obviously meant to suffer; by interrupting the suffering, you have denied the cat his chance to progress."


The other aspect could be argued to be that it was my destiny to have to see the cat suffering (which made me suffer in turn).

As it happens I did 'put a dog to sleep'; I still don't know for sure that it was the right thing to do (this must have been around the middle to late 90's), and I often think about it it, arguing in my own mind..................

[Doc]

Originally Posted by Scarlett Wampus

Aye. A trouble I have with rebirth is the lack of reliable evidence for it. For this reason I don't subscribe to the view that people suffer because of karma from past lives.

Although I do consider myself Buddhist, I hold a different opinion of karma and rebirth than commonly held among the Buddhist community. Much for the same reasons as you have stated. Although I do acknowledge that all actions have consequences and that I am responsible for my own, I reject the idea of past lives and karmic punishment from those lives. Suffering is a natural part of life and I agree with other Buddhists that it should be confronted and the removal of it's underlying sources should be something to strive for to live a happier life.

I have no problem with euthanasia. I would want the same thing for my turtles if they were suffering from incurable diseases that caused constant suffering and pain.