Euthanasia: Murder or Compassion



Euthanasia: Murder or Compassion?

Easy death?

The word 'euthanasia' comes from the Greek, 'eu' meaning easy and 'thanatos' death.  It can be defined as 'the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy' (Merriam-Webster dictionary). As with abortion, euthanasia is an ethical issue that has provoked much debate and accommodated many shades of opinion. The main focus of the discussion has been on whether the life of someone who is terminally ill should be hastened towards death, something that can be achieved relatively painlessly with modern medicine. Or should nature be let take its course, whatever the quality of life of the person who is dying? And who should decide?

Voluntary or Involuntary?

In discussing euthanasia, it is useful to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary euthanasia.

Voluntary euthanasia is when death is hastened with the consent of the dying person. Involuntary euthanasia  - usually in situations such as brain-death, long-term coma - is when others (the family and/or the medical profession) decide to withdraw life-sustaining medical support. Euthanasia can be further divided between active and passive modes. Active is when something is done to actually hasten death - a lethal injection for example; passive is when life-sustaining treatment is withdrawn and nature therefore takes its course.

So how does Buddhism stand in relation to each of these?

Compassion

Buddhism places great emphasis on the significance of human life. Of the six realms of traditional Buddhist cosmology, the human realm offers the best opportunity for enlightenment. To take life - one's own or someone else's - is seen to be wrong, something outlined in the first precept which guides us to abstain from killing living beings. On both counts, euthanasia could be seen to be wrong. On the other hand, Buddhism places great emphasis on compassion (karuna). If someone is dying in terrible agony, would it be so wrong to hasten their death - especially with their consent? Would it not be, in fact, an act of compassion? 

A Possible Perspective

Individual Buddhists will no doubt have different views on euthanasia. One response is to give primacy to the precious opportunity - even in suffering - that human life affords. The argument would be that in the dying process there is an opportunity to gain insight, spiritual or otherwise. To hasten death unnaturally is to break the first precept and to thereby risk creating negative karma for all those who are part of the decision making process. In this case, compassion would be misguided as it would cut off moments of an individual's life that could be very significant for that person. It could also be argued that with modern medicine, pain can be controlled to a large extent making the process of dying more bearable. However, where death is hastened by the administration of such pain relief, no blame can be attached to the doctor providing the sole intention has been the relief of pain rather than hastening death. (This is a fine line of course, and a somewhat precious argument perhaps). In the case of comatose patients and where brain activity seems to have ceased, switching off life sustaining technology could well be seen as acceptable.

If we take this view, active, voluntary and involuntary euthanasia would be seen as unwholesome. In some cases, however, passive euthanasia - the withdrawing of treatment where that treatment adds nothing to the quality of the dying patient - may be seen as acceptable.



................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download