Euthanasia, taken from a Greek word meaning a good death, refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. There are two different types of euthanasia, namely voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is when death is hastened with the consent of the dying person, and involuntary is when no consent is possible because the dying person is brain dead or in a long term coma. It can be further divided into active and passive euthanasia. Active is when something is done to end life, such as a lethal injection, and passive is when treatment is withdrawn and nature is left to take its course. Laws on euthanasia are different from country to country, so here I am only looking at the moral implications of euthanasia and not the legal.
Buddhism places great emphasise on not killing living beings, in fact, it is the first of the five precepts. So at first glance you would think euthanasia is wrong within Buddhism. However, it has to be noted that the precepts are not hard and fast rules, and were giving as training rules and not commandments. Also in Buddhism great emphasis is giving to Compassion. So if someone is dying in terrible agony, wouldn’t it be an act of compassion to hasten their death, with their consent or after consulting a doctor?
As with all contentious issues, there are countless different view points. Here I have selected three that I feel give a good cross section of opinions from within the Buddhist community. Firstly, Dalai Lama stated that all life is precious and so it is better to avoid euthanasia. However, he further stated that there are exceptional cases and so each case should be judged on an individual basis. This seems to leave room for euthanasia in certain circumstances.
Secondly, Thanssaro Bhikkhu, a Buddhist monk and scholar, stated that Gautama Buddha did not try and ease the patient’s transition to death, but concentrated on insight into suffering and its end. So, from Gautama Buddha’s perspective, encouraging a sick person to relax their grip on life or to give up the will to live would not count as an act of compassion. It seems Thanssaro Bhikkhu believes it is more compassionate to watch a loved one die in agony.
Thirdly, Lama Zopa Rinpoche stated he was more concerned with the outcome of the person’s next life. He said that people think performing euthanasia is an act of compassion, but he believed it also has to be carried out with wisdom. If the person will have more peace and happiness in their next life, the act will be good, however it may mean the person is reborn in a lower realm and their suffering will be a million times worse.
He went on to say that if a person is going to stay in a coma for many years, rather than spending thousands of dollars keeping them alive, support should be withdrawn and the money used to purify their negative karma, which may cause them to suffer in future lives. This approach is fine if there is a next life, but I cannot honestly be sure of that fact, can you?
So in Buddhism it seems to boil down to these three factors; the precept of not killing, compassion and wisdom.
Gautama Buddha taught the precepts so we do not cause harm to ourselves and others. If we turn them into rules we run the risk of them becoming detached from human suffering. This in turn will lead us down the wrong path and could cause us to harm others in the name of Buddhism. Compassion should be educated and informed. It should stem from our own experiences and understanding of the world. It should not be an act of sympathy, but should be empathic. If it is carried out in this way, it is coming from wisdom.
My own personal view is that euthanasia should be viewed on a case by case basis. It has to be a three way decision, if possible, between the patient, the family and the medical team. If the patient is not able to be involved, then the other two parties have to do what they believe is correct and kind. Of course life is precious, but if someone has totally lost their quality of life and will never recover from their illness, it seems euthanasia is the kindest approach.
If your loved one was lying in excruciating pain with a terminal illness, what do you think is the compassionate and wise thing to do? Should you let them suffer in this life, hoping that their next life will be better, or should you relieve them of their agony in the here and now? These are not easy questions to answer and I pray that I never have to, but if I do, I hope I would act out of compassion and not hide behind ancient texts or what someone thought Gautama Buddha said or didn’t say.
If you find yourself in this awful situation at the moment, my heart goes out to you and I hope you are able to find some inner strength.
As this is such a personal issue, I believe we should talk about it to our relatives and loved ones. This way they will know your opinion should anything happen.
You can read more blogs, listen to podcasts, watch videos and practice guided meditations on the Buddhism Guide app. Available from the Apple Store and Google Play.
This article was first posted in March 2014.
Who is the “he” in the second sentence, the Buddha or Thanissaro?: “So, from Gautama Buddha’s perspective, encouraging a sick person to relax their grip on life or to give up the will to live would not count as an act of compassion. It seems he believes it is more compassionate to watch a loved one die in agony.” Or are you saying Thanissaro believes the Buddha believes it is more compassionate… *sigh* grammar! I am not fond of the difficulties of grammar. ; )
I can’t recall any suttas that demonstrate that they had the situation we call euthanasia in the Buddha’s day. They did not have technology that kept people alive when the individual no longer had the capacity to make their own choices, which is, if I am not mistaken, what euthanasia is. But there was that situation where the Buddha gave a talk on the foulness of the body to a bunch of novices, and then left for a solitary retreat, and when he came back, the monastery seemed quite empty because many monks had killed themselves or helped kill each other. (I’ve just read two scholarly studies of this story — interpretations vary. But what is certain is that…) There was a rule instituted that says one should not talk another into killing themselves. I don’t find that uncompassionate or, in combination with the Buddha’s emphasis on understanding suffering, its origin, and cessation, as suggestive of a preference for watching someone die in agony. What I read in suttas which feature suicide is the Buddha checking to be sure that the person understands what is gained and what is risked when they — the persons choosing suicide — make the choice. That seems quite wise to me. Especially as it fosters allowing the suicidal individual to make a well-considered choice, rather than pressuring them. This seems to me quite supportive of human dignity and individual responsibility.
But again, that’s not euthanasia, that’s suicide — or perhaps it can apply to Do Not Resuscitate orders.
But, as you say, it really has to be a matter of individual situations being considered with its own unique factors — no sweeping solutions here.
Hello Linda
Thank you for your comment. I must apologize for my bad grammar. I reread back the paragraph you mentioned and you are correct it is confusing. Actually, I was talking about Thanissaro and not Gautama Buddha.
Euthanasia is such an emotive subject and that is why most people leave it alone. However, I have heard several people dismissing someone’s terminal illness as their karma. I find that very distasteful and so I just wanted to start a discussion about what Buddhism may or may not say about the subject.
It is a personal issue and so I strongly believe it has to be a personal decision. I hope if I am ever in this situation I will be strong enough to make the right decision - whatever that is.
Thanks once again for your comment and sorry for my appalling grammar.
Just to say you don’t have to be sure about rebirth to have this question about whether it is compassionate to kill someone with a low quality of life who wants to end it.
Nobody can prove that we get reborn again as other beings in the future. And different branches of Buddhism have different ideas about ti also - Therevadhans think you transit instantly to the next life while Tibetan Buddhists think there is a bardo state in between and I think Zen Buddhists just don’t say much at all.
But the main thing in common is the idea that there is some continuation after you die. It’s rather hard to practice as a Buddhist if sure that when you die, that’s it. Though if you think it is unlikely but have an open mind about it as something to investigate, then you can. Not impossible but rather hard.
If you think that there is a possibility of continuation in some form after you die, much as there is during your life - then killing someone involves considering what will happen to them next. And that, nobody knows.
Seems to me at least possible that killing someone now may lead to a future continuation with much more suffering. And you can’t answer that by relying on science because there is currently no scientific way to investigate this. Just hypotheses that make many assumptions that other scientists think are invalid.
So, not telling anyone how to decide in such difficult cases. Just saying it might help to acknowledge that one doesn’t know for sure what happens to them nect. Like “Better the devil you know”. And for as long as they remain alive in this life, you can do things to take care of them and ease their discomfort Once they are dead and on their way to whatever happens next, well according to the teachings of some Buddhists you can still help them through your connection. But it’s not so certain and obvious and direct - how you can.
As for vegetative state, some people recover after years in vegetative state, so that’s quite tricky also.
Robert, you make a lot of good points. It really is an emotive subject and in the end comes down to a case by case basis. Thank you for your thoughts.
Yeshe
To kill, order to kill, or appreciate with it of ones mother and father is even a cardinal kamma, and a 100% push into hell deed. Its more then just a little misguiding what some people, suggest others to do in the name of Buddha, with there foolishness they call compassion.
Even to simply agree with is pretty much bad kamma, and taken that some would act on it, then this transgression in even fulfilled. So Atma would say, Mr. compassion has now a lot to do, bury the pitfalls he had spread out.
No need to comment on giving people the advice to better trust their defilement and but Buddha and his teachings aside.
There is really no compassion needed for a fool like that. For it would not help him either, appreciating people to even kill their father and mother.
Even its more than special, that one accepts hard rebukes (Sadhu! for that step, if it was not though otherwise, which could be as well as good, Love and Hate is a good field for politic: Pema) - there are really less who would except such uncensored and not manipulated on there websites and blogs - Mr. Yeshe, how ever, has a lot more to do in this case, to prevent from really serious effects, aside of them which had be done already to close this pitfalls of fatal wrong view, that are for sure destinated in long time suffering.
Also Mr. Yeshe should be aware of common laws, because his suggestions are even hard against his laws in his country, nothing else but encouraging people to kill and make criminal acts, as for those who can find some protection by worldly still existing, but soon disappearing laws.
In the case Mr. Yeshe likes to interact, or to declare something or what ever he feels inspired or forced, he is of course invited to do not only participate in his “rebuking fashioned invitation to right view” topic.
metta & karuna
Samana Johann