Euthanasia. The term (from the Greek eu, good, and thanatos, death) means literally a good death, but as used in modern ethical and theological discussion it signifies "mercy killing," e.g., through the deliberate administration of a drug specifically intended to accelerate death and so diminish and terminate suffering when no hope of recovery from a painful disease is within the bounds of reasonable possibility. Much may be argued both for and against the practice.
First we must distinguish voluntary from compulsory euthanasia. By "voluntary" is meant euthanasia requested by the sufferer, which some would call assisted suicide or homicide by request and which others would regard as an act to be encouraged by all humane members of a civilized society. Compulsory euthanasia implies a decision made by an individual (e.g., a doctor, relative, or friend of the sufferer) to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is suffering great pain yet who (e.g., because of mental incompetence or physical disability) cannot express a wish for such an action. Compulsory euthanasia is patently open to the possibility of abuse, e.g., if medical or other bureaucracies were to be granted the right to make such decisions, the effect could be even to lead to a form of genocide. Yet the alternative implies the grief and distress of a parent or spouse or close friend obliged to watch his or her most dearly beloved condemned to prolonged suffering with no outcome but death. The question is a very lively one today on which not only the general public but the Churches themselves are sharply divided. It is also one on which even those most favorable to it would recognize legislation to be extremely difficult. Among modern societies, Holland is probably the one that has taken the most lenient attitude toward the subject, yet even there legislation permitting it proved difficult to obtain.
Although a burning question today, the problems it raises were well known in antiquity. In classical India, for example, where the brahmanical outlook strongly encouraged the individual to live as long as possible and suicide in the sense of self-killing for the sake of pride or in rage or through fear was deemed one of the worst of sins, to be punished by many thousands of years in hell, certain forms of self-willed death were accepted, e.g., when one is suffering from an illness from which one cannot recover or when one is too old and feeble to have the capacity to perform even the minimum ritual requirements imposed by Hindu society. In such circumstances the voluntary termination of life was not only blameless but to be preferred. (See Pandurang V. Kane, History of Dharmassatra [ 1974], Vol. 2, Part 2, pp. 924-6.) The brahmanical writers were plainly aware of the difficulties that are so widely recognized in modern controversies on the subject, such as we have noted, yet they could justify euthanasia even in the face of the principle of ahimsā (non-violence to any living being). They did so, however, by way of exception from an immensely strong rule against and distaste for suicide, and they permitted the exception by way of philosophical argument rather than by specific legislation, which they seem to have recognized, as we do in a modern Western context, to be hazardous to society since likely to open the way to abuse.
The case against euthanasia in modern times is based on the principle of the "right to live" as defined, for instance, by the European Convention of Human Rights ( 1953), section 1, article 1. National medical associations throughout the civilized world have affirmed voluntary euthanasia to be unethical and legislatures, have been generally reluctant to provide any legal support for the practice. The case for euthanasia depends on whether the individual, in case of extreme suffering, has the "right to die", affording his doctors and friends the right or even the duty to provide him with assistance to do so if necessary. A very large body of literature exists on the subject, many attempts have been made in many countries to obtain official legal recognition of the legitimacy of the practice, and various societies actively engage in trying to secure such recognition; but the problems have proved generally intractable. Meanwhile, such euthanasia has been quietly practiced by many humane doctors and others, some of whom have had their licenses revoked or have even been sent to prison, although often with lenient or nominal sentences.
euthanasia
As a practice that involves the intentional taking of life, euthanasia is contrary to basic Buddhist ethical teachings because it violates the first of the Five Precepts (pañca-śīla). It is also contrary to the more general moral principle of ahiṃsā. This conclusion applies to both the active and passive forms of the practice, even when accompanied by a compassionate motivation with the end of avoiding suffering. The term ‘euthanasia’ has no direct equivalent in canonical Buddhist languages. Euthanasia as an ethical issue is not explicitly discussed in canonical or commentarial sources, and no clear cases of euthanasia are reported. However, there are canonical cases of suicide and attempted suicide which have a bearing on the issue. One concerns the monastic precept against taking life, the third of the four pārājika-dharmas, which was introduced by the Buddha when a group of monks became disenchanted with life and began to kill themselves, some dying by their own hand and others with the aid of an intermediary. The Buddha intervened to prevent this, thus apparently introducing a prohibition on voluntary euthanasia. In other situations where monks in great pain contemplated suicide they are encouraged to turn their thoughts away from this and to use their experience as a means to developing insight into the nature of suffering and impermanence (anitya).
euthanasia : (nt.) anāyāsamaraṇa.
OUR SPONSORS
RELATED ORGANIZATIONS
