Buddhist Attitudes to Use of Animals in Scientific Procedures - Creating a Dialogue - Buddhist Ethics and Animal Life and Death

 Author: Ruth Wood

Buddhism and Animal Testing (using animals in scientific procedures)

Arguments that oppose using animals in scientific procedures:

Buddhists try to do no harm (or as little harm as possible) to animals. This reflects the teachings of the first moral precept - to abstain from taking life, as well as the intention of the Buddhist path to reduce suffering. Buddhists believe that the actions one performs and the emotions one experiences when doing so can be carried across multiple lives, suggesting that harming animals (even with the good intention of helping humanity) may become a pattern of behaviour which can effect one's karma and lead to a negative cycle of emotions and rebirths that a being will have to work hard to break free from. This provides a warning for scientists and laboratory workers who are involved in the regular testing of animals.  

  Buddhists try to show loving-kindness to all beings, including animals. This is particularly true of Mahayana Buddhists who uphold the 6 Paramitas and the Bodhisattva goal of ultimate compassion for all beings. A Mahayana Buddhist would view the suffering of mammals in laboratories as being unacceptable, particularly when these tests often link to undesirable human traits, such as vanity (cosmetic testing) or craving for permanence in a world affected by anicca (for example, anti-aging products that are first tested on animals). 

 The doctrine of right livelihood teaches Buddhists to avoid any work connected with the killing of animals. This is a clear command to scientists and the medical profession that animals should not be killed during scientific testing. This would mean that certain research, for example where animals are infected with fatal diseases in order to try and research vaccines and cures, would be seen as unacceptable as the ultimate outcome will be the death of the animal. 

The doctrine of karma teaches that any wrong behaviour will have to be paid for in a future life - so cruel acts to animals should be avoided. One could argue that cosmetics testing is particularly pointless and cruel, and that animal suffering cannot be justified to support the development of makeup or bath products which link heavily with vanity, craving and sensual pleasure - all concepts that are affected by anicca and will cause further dukkha (suffering) when they stop working or no longer satisfy the user.

Buddhists treat the lives of human and non-human animals with equal respect

Buddhists see human and non-human animals as closely related:

·        both have Buddha-nature (the ability to become a Buddha in the future) - this is evidenced through the Jartaka Tales, the stories of the Buddha's past lives. These stories tell of when the Buddha was a monkey or a tiger or another being, and how in those forms he was still able to grow in wisdom, perform moral actions and progress on the path to enlightenment. 

·        both have the possibility of becoming perfectly enlightened - all beings are impermanent and their current form is not indicative of the form or experience they will have in the future.

·        a being may be reborn either in a human body or in the body of a non-human animal, therefore all beings are treated with the same basic respect because they are, in essence, equal. 

•          Buddhists believe that is wrong to hurt or kill animals, because all beings are afraid of injury and death. One who observes an animal before it is killed, or whilst it is undergoing animal testing, can see that those animals are not happy or fulfilled, and that they feel pain and fear. This emotion is bound to have negative karmic consequences and create patterns that could be carried across multiple lives due to the teachings on the Chain of Dependent Origination - traits and experiences can be repeated in multiple lives, meaning that animals who are tested upon could experience further fear or depression in the future. 

Arguments that supporting using animals in scientific procedures: Buddhist behaviour towards and thinking about animals is not always positive.

• The doctrine of karma implies that souls are reborn as animals because of past misdeeds. Being reborn as an animal is a serious spiritual setback. It could therefore be argued that due to their inferior karmic form, it could be for the greater good that humans use these animals to further their own lifespans. This is particularly true of medical animal testing for the sake of developing new treatments to preserve human life. It could even be argued to be a worthy reason for the animal to suffer, as their suffering leads to a reduction is suffering for a large number of humans, for example through developing treatments such as chemotherapy to treat cancer. 
•  Because non-human animals can't engage in conscious acts of self-improvement they can't improve their karmic status, and their souls must continue to be reborn as animals until their bad karma is exhausted. Only when they are reborn as human beings can they resume the quest for nirvana. Therefore, it could be argued that animal testing can be justified due to their lower karmic forms.
• This bad karma, and the animal's inability to do much to improve it, led Buddhists in the past to think that non-human animals were inferior to human beings and so were entitled to fewer rights than human beings. If animals are below humans in the spiritual hierarchy, it could be argued to be morally right for humans to use them for their purposes. 
• Early Buddhists (but not the Buddha himself) used the idea that animals were spiritually inferior as a justification for the exploitation and mistreatment of animals. This shows that some Buddhists may take andro-centric teachings around the importance of the human form to justify the use of animals to further human life and experience. 

Experimenting on animals – moral conditions

Buddhists say that this is morally wrong if the animal concerned might come to any harm. However, Buddhists also acknowledge the value that animal experiments may have for human health.

So perhaps a Buddhist approach to experiments on animals might require the experimenter to:

·        accept the karma of carrying out the experiment

·        the experimenter will acquire bad karma through experimenting on an animal

·        experiment only for a good purpose

·        experiment only on animals where there is no alternative

·        design the experiment to do as little harm as possible

·        avoid killing the animal unless it is absolutely necessary

·        treat the animals concerned kindly and respectfully

The bad karmic consequences for the experimenter seem to demand a high level of altruistic behaviour in research laboratories.

Buddhism and Animal Cloning

Buddhist doctrines could be argued to both support and reject the matter of animal cloning for reproductive purposes and medical experimentation. 

There is no stated position among Buddhists on cloning, so scholars like Campbell are left only to interpret the tradition's precepts on their own.

Arguments in favour of animal cloning: Buddhism might be willing to accept cloning,  C Campbell (Director of Philosophy and Ethics at Oregon State University) said, because it represents a leap in modern science and self-understanding that could be considered a path to enlightenment. The Dalai Lama and Thitch Nhat Hanh are both in favour of the links between Buddhism and science, so may allow animal testing if it allowed for great scientific breakthroughs.

Damien Keown (Buddhism, A Very Short Introduction, 1996) argues that unlike other religions that as there is no divine creator in Buddhism, Buddhists do not see the creation of a new animal (or even human) life as playing God. This is because it is impossible to "play God" when an omnipotent divine creator with a plan for humanity does not exist. Buddhism and science are therefore argued to be more compatible, because Buddhists do not see themselves as usurping the role of an omnipotent God when they reproduce animals via artificial methods. 

Arguments against animal cloning: 

However, Keown  does raise the question of what creating copies of beings will do within the context of Samsara: negative personality traits passed on through paticcasamuppada could be multiplied in animals that are cloned, leading to more karmic suffering of multiple beings. Do they carry the same karmic traits as the animal they were cloned from? Does this create a new being within Samsara? Is this being entirely new? These questions remain unanswered and of course cannot be answered via Buddhists scriptures, due to the contemporary nature of cloning technologies.

The  Eightfold Path prohibits harm to any sentient beings, which could be seen in the destruction of cells necessary to perform cloning research. Many embryos are destroyed in the process, or cloning gone wrong means that living beings are born incompatible with life - this could be argued to be tantamount to murder, depending on the attitude to the embryo that the Buddhist has taken. Peter Harvey (An Introduction to Buddhism, 1990) argues that Buddhists believe life begins at conception, so the ending of cloned lives is the destruction of a living being. On more practical grounds, Buddhism promotes ultimate respect to every sentient being, and that generally includes cells born out of research. Destroying such cells, even in research on animal cloning, runs contrary to Buddhist teaching.

"It is hard to see what purposes—scientific or otherwise—can justify the dehumanization that results when life is created and manipulated for other ends," Keown said. "We should not forget that Ian Wilmut, the creator of Dolly [the cloned sheep], failed 276 times before Dolly was conceived."

Buddhism and Using Animals in Organ Donation

In favour: Organ donation is giving an organ to help someone who needs a transplant. There are no injunctions in Buddhism for or against organ donation. Central to Buddhism is a wish to relieve suffering and there may be circumstances where organ donation may be seen as an act of generosity. It could be argued that an animal would receive good karma in a future life if its organs were used to relieve suffering after death.

Against: However, as karma is governed by the rule of intention, can this be the case? An animal cannot consent to giving up an organ so it would be difficult to argue that it would be helpful to an animal to use their organs after death.

Because of the moral precepts, it would be wrong for a Buddhist to kill an animal in order to use its organs, as this would be harming a sentient being who could be reborn as a human in the future and should be treated with respect. Animals cannot give informed consent so it could be seen as wrong to take their organs. In order for animal donations to be successful there has been a lot of animal testing which causes dukkha.

Students - Now Try This:

Create a concluding paragraph on Buddhist attitudes to the above issues: Animal testing, Animal Cloning and Organ Donation. Make sure to conclude your own overall opinion on how most Buddhists would interpret these actions. 

Buddhist Attitudes to Food and Farming, Blood Sports - Buddhist Ethics and Animal Life and Death - Creating a Dialogue

Author: Ruth Wood

Buddhism and animal life and death

Use of Animals As Food

Arguments in Favour:

•        Not all Buddhists choose to be vegetarian: Monks will often accept meat if it is donated by the laity. According to Theravada, the Buddha allowed his monks to eat pork, chicken and fish if the monk was aware that the animal was not killed on their behalf.

•        The Buddha himself was said to eat donated meat. There is a suggestion that the last meal he ate before his sudden death could have been a meat meal.

•        In some Northern Buddhist countries there is a very cold climate so vegetarianism is seen as being impractical (e.g. Nepal). This is because it is very difficult to eat a plant based diet with snow on the ground for so much of the year, for the means of practical survival, Buddhists in Nepal may need to eat meat.

•        Most Buddhists do not have concerns about eating eggs and dairy, suggesting that it is possible to eat animal by-products that do not involve animal death, and that animals can be kept for the purpose of providing some food an sustenance to humans.

•        In terms of karmic status, and the fact that Buddhism has an andro-centric nature in the sense that humans are the highest form of rebirth, it could be remarked logically that Buddhists can use animals for their own food and sustenance, this is because they are higher karmic forms and are therefore more precious. It could be argued that eating animals to fuel one’s human life may help a Buddhist to progress on the path to enlightenment.  

Arguments Against:

•        However, it would be wrong to kill an animal for its meat: Buddhists must not hunt or be butchers. This comes under the category of “Right Livelihood” in the Moral Precepts for the laity and monastics. One’s profession and the time one spends in daily life should not be dedicated to harm. Hunting and butchery would both be extremely frowned upon in Buddhist countries, and to a lesser extent meat farming. Buddhists believe that those who raise animals for meat, hunt animals, or slaughter them for food (e.g. abattoir workers) would experience negative karmic consequences in Samsara, either in the hell realms or even being born as animals who are then slaughtered and tortured.

•        Despite the andro-centric argument that the human form is the highest karmic forms, Buddhists also remember that the doctrine of anicca (impermanence) states that all non-enlightened beings are impermanent, and therefore a human now will not always be born in this form. It is for this reason that Buddhists largely choose to observe a vegetarian or vegan diet, as they see themselves in the lives of animals and understand that all sentient beings exist in a state of anicca in Samsara.

•        Southern Buddhists are said to greatly admire those who choose to be vegetarians, suggesting that there is a cultural value for those who choose this lifestyle. There is also suggestions that in certain countries, meat eating communities may be frowned upon for the harm that is done to animals. For example, in lands where Buddhists and Muslims live side-by-side, there may be a degree of societal judgement for Muslims who eat within halal laws.  

•        In China, culturally Buddhists choose to be vegetarian as this is their interpretation of the first precept, showing that vegetarianism is the standard for some Buddhist cultures.

•        The Mahayana schools generally recommend a vegetarian diet, as some believe that the Buddha insisted that his followers should not eat the flesh of any sentient being. Monks of the Mahayana traditions that follow some specific vows are forbidden by their vows from eating flesh of any kind.

•        The Jartaka Tales are stories of the Buddha’s past lives. In these stories, there are times where the Buddha took on the form of an animal, but was still able to grow in wisdom whilst taking on this form. This suggests that it is wrong to kill animals because they could progress towards nirvana in their current form, and potentially even earn good karma. Buddhists may interpret these stories to support their view that it is wrong to use animals for food.

•        In the Anguilmala Sutta the Buddha told monks that it is wrong to consume the flesh of animals because of the Tathagata-garba or “Buddha nature” – the belief that all beings have the potential to gain enlightenment in their current life form. “Therefore, one’s own flesh and the flesh of another are a single flesh, so Buddhas do not eat meat”.

Students - Now Try This:

Create your own concluding paragraph for the statement "Buddhists should not eat animals."

Buddhism and intensive farming

Arguments against intensive/factory farming:  

·        Factory farming causes a lot of harm to both animals and the environment. It also is a breeding ground for diseases amongst animals, like mad cow disease and chicken flu. Compassion is central in Buddhist practice, so this should not be allowed from the Buddhist perspective.

·        The external environment is seriously polluted because the internal environment in the mind is seriously damaged. Bottomless greed has pushed mankind to satisfy excessive and unnecessary demands, and take them into endless competitions, leading to self-destruction and environmental damage. Contrasting to the unwholesome and greedy mind is the spirit of simple living and contentment by those who practise the Buddha's teaching.

·    Humans should not crave so heavily, if they reduced their craving, the need to farm intensively would go down and the suffering of animals would be drastically reduced. Intensive farming is characterised by high levels of input and output per agricultural land unit, with a focus on making profit. It could be argued that these farming practices reduce animal welfare in the name of human greed. Therefore it is wrong to intensively farm animals for meat, because this represents the craving for riches that Buddhists renounce when they become monastics.

·        The Middle Way demands that Buddhists take an approach to life that is not extreme- it can be argued that intensive farming is an extreme practise, not a natural one. Free range and organic farming would strike a better middle ground from Buddhist perspective, but it would still be wrong to kill and animals and farming often requires this.

·        Buddhists should live in harmony with all beings and with nature. On that basis, those who understand the Buddha's teaching will limit their selfishness, to live in harmony with nature, without harming the environment. They will see what should be explored and to what level, what should be protected for future use by the next generations and other beings. Excessive greed to possess everything for themselves, or for their own group, has make men becoming blind. By all means, they try to maximise their profits, without being concerned of the negative impact of unplanned exploitation leading to depletion of natural resources, discharge toxics into the air, water, earth, leading to environmental pollution, destroying the ecological balance.

Students - Now Try This:

Create your own concluding paragraph for the statement "Buddhists should not practice intensive farming."

 Buddhism and Blood Sports: Against blood sports

The Buddha said that monks and nuns should not watch animal fights because they were considered a vulgar entertainment and because they involved cruelty. For monastics and lay people, participation in blood sports would be against the first Precept which requires that we have 'care, kindness and compassion to all living beings'.

Buddha rejected this on grounds of the fact that these sports are often associated with gambling and craving. In addition, he recognised that they encouraged people to take joy in violence and enjoy pain being inflicted on other beings. This exemplifies the 3 fires of hatred, greed and delusion. 

The Buddha said that monks and nuns should not watch animal fights because they were considered a vulgar entertainment and because they involved cruelty For monastics and lay people, participation in blood sports would be against the first Precept which requires that we have `care, kindness and compassion to all living beings'

There is no tradition of blood sports in Sri Lanka, Tibet, Korea or amongst Chinese Buddhists either, probably because of the influence of Buddhism. Cockfighting ending in death is popular in Burma, Cambodia and Thailand.

Students - Now Try This:

Explain why Buddhists oppose blood sports 

 

Buddhist Attitudes to Capital Punishment - Creating a Dialogue - Buddhist Ethics and Issues of Human Life and Death

 Author: Ruth Wood

Capital Punishment

Buddhist arguments against the death penalty: 

When one thinks of Buddhism, they do not think of a religion in support of violent measures. Buddhism is founded on principles of peacefulness and the reduction of harm and suffering. One could therefore conclude that capital punishment would not be acceptable to Buddhists, as it forms a violent infrastructure of society. 

Buddhists place great emphasis on non-violence and compassion for all life. The First Moral Precept requires individuals to abstain from injuring or killing any living creature, clearly making the death penalty impossible to enact. One could also argue that Buddhism presents a way of life and a pathway for a personal journey of spiritual and moral growth, and that it would be wrong to cut this off by murdering an offender. In so doing, an offender is prevented the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and grow to understand why their capital crime was wrong. Buddhism would always advocate for people to have the opportunity to grow in panna (wisdom), the death penalty prevents this by cutting life off in its current form. 

It is also important to note that the human form is seen as the highest level of rebirth, as most Buddhists regard this as the only form in which one can gain enlightenment. This means that the destruction of human life deprives a person of the opportunity to progress on the path to nirvana, which would be unacceptable to Buddhists. Even if a criminal is a murderer, the form they currently take is fundamentally precious, and whilst in this form a person should be given the opportunity to reform rather than having their life cut short for their crimes.

The Buddha did not explicitly speak about capital punishment, but his teachings show no sympathy for physical punishment, no matter how bad the crime. An action, even if it brings benefit to oneself, cannot be considered a good action if it causes physical and mental pain to another being. And If a person foolishly does me wrong, I will return to him the protection of my boundless love. The more evil that comes from him, the more good will go from me. (Mercy and Punishment: Buddhism and the Death Penalty; Alarid and Wang, 1996)

The Angulimala Sutta from the Sutta Pitaka also shows us how the Buddha responded to a fearsome murdered who terrorised local villages in India, even wearing a necklace of human finger bones, who aimed to kill 1,000 people:

Angulimala had not slept for days and was close to exhaustion. At the same time, he was very anxious to kill the thousandth person and complete his task. He made up his mind to kill the first person he met. Perched high on a mountain, hidden by trees, he saw a woman on the path below. He descended but then he saw it was his mother.

At that moment, the Buddha appeared on the path. Angulimala decided to kill him instead.

He charged after the Buddha with knife raised, but the Buddha kept moving ahead out of his reach. Angulimala could not catch up, no matter how much he tried.

Finally he shouted, “Stop! Stop!”

The Buddha replied, “I have stopped. It is you who have not stopped.”

Angulimala didn’t understand. He asked, “Why do you say that you have stopped while I have not?”

The Buddha replied, “I say that I have stopped because I have given up killing all beings. I have given up ill-treating or harming all living beings. I have cultivated love and patience through meditation. But you—you have not given up killing or ill-treating others, and you have not cultivated love and patience. Therefore, you are the one who has not stopped.”

These words penetrated the fog of Angulimala’s mind and calmed his rage. He thought, “This man is wise and brave. He must be the Buddha himself. He must have come here just to help me!”

Angulimala threw away his weapons and asked the Buddha to teach him meditation and wisdom. The Buddha agreed.

When the king and his men came for Angulimala, they found him in the Buddha’s forest meditation retreat. Since the outlaw had given up his evil ways, the king agreed to leave him alone. Angulimala sincerely and seriously practiced meditation and the training of moral conduct.

Still, he had no peace of mind. He kept remembering what he had done in the past. He recalled the pathetic cries of his victims.

Whenever he went out in public, people recognized him and attacked him, leaving him bleeding and bruised. He felt guilty and thought that he was too horrible a person to ever be happy and peaceful, no matter how hard he tried.

The Buddha reminded him, “My son, you have stopped doing evil but are still suffering the consequences of your past actions. Have patience. Everyone can change for the better, no matter what they have done. No one is too bad to change, and you have changed. It doesn’t matter whether people realize it or not. Keep practicing your meditation patiently.”

One morning while he was in the streets near the meditation retreat, Angulimala heard someone crying in pain. It was a woman suffering the agonies of childbirth.

He stopped and thought to himself, “All human beings suffer.” He began to have deep compassion for the woman and all the people he had harmed, as well as for himself and all living beings.

The feelings of compassion and kindness calmed his mind and helped him develop better concentration and patience. In turn, the concentration and patience helped him develop still more love and compassion for all living beings. Now he devoted himself to helping others as much as he could.

Angulimala lived peacefully after that. When people heard about the change in him, they asked the Buddha, “Can it be true? Can a man who has killed so many people ever really learn to concentrate and calm his mind? Can he really have a peaceful and balanced mind? Is it possible for him to live a good life after all he has done?”

The Buddha answered, “Yes. He harmed so many people because his mind was overwhelmed with hurt and anger. He had been badly harmed himself. Later, he listened to good advice, he meditated, and his mind became strong and healthy.”

No matter what someone may have done in the past, developing concentration can help. It is a powerful tool for gaining real peace of mind, and cultivating kindness and compassion for others.

The Buddha spoke to, reasoned with, and converted Angulimala, transforming him from a violent felon into a man who eventually overcame hurt and anger and grew in wisdom - his mind eventually becoming strong and healthy. 

This suggests that the Buddha himself prescribed love and forgiveness over the death penalty, suggesting Buddhist support for the punishment aim of reformation and rehabilitation over retribution. If Angulimala had been killed, he would not have overcome the influence of the three fires of hatred, greed and delusion and his violence and rage would have carried over into future lifetimes. 

Buddhism believes fundamentally in the cycle of birth and re-birth (Samsara) and teaches that if capital punishment is administered it will have compromising effects on the souls of both offender and the punisher in future incarnations. This means that both the victim of the death penalty and the executioner will experience karmic consequences in Samsara. 

As far as punishment in this world is concerned, Buddhism has strong views:

·        inhumane treatment of an offender does not solve their misdeeds or those of humanity in general - the best approach to an offender is reformatory rather than punitive

·        punishment should only be to the extent to which the offender needs to make amends, and his rehabilitation into society should be of paramount importance

·        punishing an offender with excessive cruelty will injure not just the offender's mind, but also the mind of the person doing the punishing

·        it is impossible to administer severe punishment with composure and compassion

·        if the crime is particularly serious, the person may be banished from the community or country

 Students - Now try this.

Explain the narrative of the Angulimala Sutta, and how this story can illustrate Buddhist support for reformation and rehabilitation over retribution in the form of the death penalty. 

Buddhist Arguments in favour of Capital Punishment

Whilst not the state religion, with the monarch of Thailand being a practicing Buddhist, the example of Thailand is one that suggests that Buddhism and capital punishment can be reconciled. Thailand has strict laws on deterrence and retribution, with the death penalty being in place for murder, violent offences and drug offences. 

The Death Penalty may exist in countries that are typically seen as "Buddhist" because:

·        belief by politicians that capital punishment is necessary for retribution, cultural customs, or for deterrence value

·        a long tradition of capital punishment in a particular country

·        keeping order in society is seen as more important than Buddha's teaching

·        reaction to long periods of political unrest or economic instability

This suggests that it is possible for a country's infrastructure and systems of justice to include capital punishment despite that country having clear ties to Buddhist beliefs.

 Students - Now try this.

Create a concluding paragraph explaining your view on whether or not Buddhism and the death penalty are compatible. 

Buddhist Attitudes to Euthanasia - Buddhist Ethics and Dialogues - Issues of Human Life and Death

 Author: Ruth Wood

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Introducing the issues of Buddhism, euthanasia and suicide: Buddhists are not unanimous in their view of euthanasia, and the teachings of the Buddha don't explicitly deal with it. Most Buddhists (like almost everyone else) are against involuntary euthanasia (e.g. someone who is injured in a way being killed on a battlefield by their own soldiers to put them out of their misery). Their position on voluntary euthanasia is less clear.

 Arguments against Euthanasia in Buddhism:

States of mind: The most common position is that voluntary euthanasia is wrong, because it demonstrates that one's mind is in a bad state and that one has allowed physical suffering to cause mental suffering. Meditation and the proper use of pain killing drugs should enable a person to attain a state where they are not in mental pain, and so no longer contemplate euthanasia or suicide. Buddhists might also argue that helping to end someone's life is likely to put the helper into a bad mental state, and this too should be avoided.

Avoiding harm: Buddhism places great stress on non-harm, and on avoiding the ending of life. The reference is to life - any life - so the intentional ending of life seems against Buddhist teaching and voluntary euthanasia should be forbidden. Certain codes of Buddhist monastic law explicitly forbid it. Lay-people do not have a code of Buddhist law, so the strongest that can be said of a lay person who takes part in euthanasia is that they have made an error of judgement.

Karma:  Buddhists regard death as a transition. The deceased person will be reborn to a new life, whose quality will be the result of their karma. This produces two problems. We don't know what the next life is going to be like. If the next life is going to be even worse than the life that the sick person is presently enduring it would clearly be wrong on a utilitarian basis to permit euthanasia, as that shortens the present bad state of affairs in favour of an even worse one. The second problem is that shortening life interferes with the working out of karma, and alters the karmic balance resulting from the shortened life.

Arguments that could support Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

The Example of the Buddha: The Buddha himself showed tolerance of suicide by monks in two cases. The Japanese Buddhist tradition includes many stories of suicide by monks, and suicide was used as a political weapon by Buddhist monks during the Vietnam war. But these were monks, and that makes a difference. In Buddhism, the way life ends has a profound impact on the way the new life will begin. So a person's state of mind at the time of death is important - their thoughts should be selfless and enlightened, free of anger, hate or fear. This suggests that suicide (and so euthanasia) is only approved for people who have achieved enlightenment and that the rest of us should avoid it.

Reducing Dukkha: One could argue that Buddhism is founded on the principle that suffering is wrong, and therefore should be prevented. This belief that Buddhists should overcome suffering could be so extended to justify the ending of a life that is spent in agony, or with such a low quality that the person afflicted does not want to live anymore. Because Buddhism is about one's personal experience, journey and growth over many lifetimes, it could be concluded that ending the suffering of someone in the form of euthanasia or assisted suicide could be permitted, if the person asking to be killed has come to this decision wisely, over a period of reflection on the consequences. If the person asking to be killed is entering into this (for example, arranging to go to Dignitas in Switzerland) with eyes open and a full understanding of the action and the potential karmic consequences, Buddhists would argue that one has the right to choose what happens and how their current life is ended. The act of euthanasia could be seen as an act of mercy, a Kusala (selfless) action, putting the needs of the person asking for death above one's own desire for them to continue to live - this is particularly true if the person asking for death is a loved one who does not want to continue living with a terrible and incurable health condition. 

Students - Now Try This:

Using this post, and the post on comparing Christian and Secular Ethics with Buddhism on issues of Human Life and Death, create your own for and against summary of the Buddhist attitudes to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. 

Make sure you plan how you would conclude an exam answer on the Buddhist attitude to Euthanasia - is it always wrong, or does it depend on the situation?