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?

Human Life and Death in Buddhism and Ethics - Comparing Buddhism with Christian Theology and Ethical Theories

 Author: Ruth Wood

Describing the ethical approaches taken in Western Philosophy and Ethics that are relevant to issues of human life and death

Christian Approaches:

·        Natural Moral Law – offers a deontological view of issues of human life issues. Human life is seen as sacred, particularly innocent life – and Aquinas argues that all humans would understand that this is essential for ethical behaviour when using their God-given reason. This is further supported by Divine Law, which dictates that life begins at conception (Psalm 139 – “you knit me together in my mother’s womb” and Jeremiah – “in my mother’s womb you knew me, before I was born you set me apart), and that murder is wrong (Exodus 20:13 – “you shall not murder.” This is part of the Decalogue). Aquinas upholds self-preservation and the preservation of innocent life, so it is important to note that he is in favour of capital punishment – this is because these lives are not innocent, they are deserving of death as a matter of justice and the maintenance of an ordered society. Aquinas also does not highly regard the life of animals – he makes it clear in the Summa Theologica that animals should be regarded as “things” which are given by God to be used by humans to reach Eudaimonia. It is therefore likely that he would take little issue with using animals to benefit humans, even if this means the suffering of death and animals in the process.

·        Situation Ethics – offers a more flexible approach to moral decision making, as it uses the example of Jesus to show that morality should consider the consequences of one’s actions, and this determines if something is right or wrong. Fletcher upholds the example of Jesus in the Bible, suggesting that he was a moral relativist – his actions showed that at times it is acceptable to break a deontological rule if in doing so loving circumstances were brought about (agape love) – for example, when he forgave the woman caught in adultery and prevented her from being stoned to death. The Working Principle “personalism” and the Fundamental Principles that Fletcher illustrates the Rule of Love with all indicate his attitude to human life – life is inherently valuable and people should work to preserve human life and limit human suffering. However, because this theory is teleological, there are no moral absolutes, meaning that no action can ever be deemed inherently right or wrong, “the morality of the action depends on the situation” (Fletcher). Nevertheless, Personalism does indicate that it is more likely that Fletcher would preserve human life over animal life, and that he views human life as more important in moral decision making.

Secular Ethics:

·        Virtue Ethics: Aristotle offers a secular theory that does not depend on divine guidance of any kind, rather one should cultivate characteristics that will lead to personal moral growth and the flourishing of society. However, his theory offers moral guidance regarding the issue of murder, and it is clear that Aristotle takes a deontological attitude to this action in his work, meaning that he views this action as always being wrong. However, as Aristotle does not directly comment on the personhood of the embryo, it is difficult to find direct teachings that can be applied to the issues of human life and death that discuss the rights and status of unborn children. Virtue Ethics is therefore mostly subjective, leaving the moral agent to make up their mind regarding the kind of characteristics that one is exhibiting when dealing with issues of human life and death. However, it is important to remember that Aristotle’s focus on “flourishing” society’s does mean that there is a communal aspect to morality, and that acting to benefit a society as a whole is a moral action in his eyes. Furthermore, Aristotle upheld the importance of law and order and lived at a time when capital punishment was acceptable, meaning that it is likely that he would support capital punishment in circumstances where the most justice is done by administering the death penalty. Aristotle created the ‘hierarchy of the souls’ suggesting that animals are below humans and thus animal life can be used in support of human flourishing.

·        Utilitarianism: Bentham’s Hedonic Principle encourages that minimisation of human suffering, but does this by considering what is best for the majority. For this reason, Bentham’s theory is often seen to support actions that use an embryo as a means to an end, as actions such as embryo research lead to move overall happiness for the greatest number, particularly if they are able to achieve feats such as the ending of genetic diseases. It has also been argued by many that Bentham was not speciesist, meaning that his theory can be used to reduce the suffering of animals as well as the suffering of humans. However, this is subjective, and many Utilitarians may feel that should the moral dilemma involve preserving a human life by taking an animal life (e.g. by using them in organ transplants) then this is acceptable. However, Bentham may not support the widespread suffering of animals for limited human enjoyment, for example through intensive farming and blood sports – but again, this is debated.

 Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Natural Moral Law

·        Natural Moral Law is andro-centric, and argues that innocent human life should be protected at all costs. The primary and secondary precepts tell us that Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are wrong, as they destroy the image of God that humans were created in. 

Although they have a different view of human life, Buddhists would also agree that the human form is precious because it is the only form in which one can gain enlightenment. Therefore they would agree with Aquinas on these moral issues. 

Like Natural Moral Law, Buddhists view embryos as persons and believe that life begins at conception. Their treatment of the embryo is therefore likely to be fairly similar, as they view the embryo as being a precious form that should be respected. In the case of Double Effect where abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, Buddhists and Aquinas would also come to the same conclusion that in this case abortion is moral, as the action is designed to prevent harm to the mother. 

Counter-Argument: However this is where the similarity ends – NML’s view of the embryo stems from Aquinas’ belief in the divine creator who has bestowed reason upon humanity, allowing them to understand morality. It is through creation that human life is made sacred, as the Bible teaches that every being is created by God for a purpose. Aquinas is also far more deontological than Buddhism, having a strict view of the treatment of the embryo, whereas it is evident at times that Buddhism may relax its view of the embryo should the action result in widespread reduction of dukkha – therefore, there are times where Buddhists may support actions such as embryo research and abortion (such as in post-war Japan). For this reason, Buddhism could be seen as most similar to Proportionalism from Hoose and McCormick, as they too are preoccupied with finding a proportional response that upholds good moral rules whilst also reducing harm in its consequences.

Criticism of  Buddhist Beliefs from Natural Moral Law:

Natural Moral Law:

·        Buddhists are wrong because they do not view the world as being created by an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent creator God.

·        Karma would be rejected as illogical and theologically incorrect – the system of reward and punishment in the universe comes from God.

·        Aquinas believes that humans have souls, meaning that he would reject the doctrine of anatta and all its implications for Buddhism.

·        Aquinas’ view of the afterlife depends on the system of heaven and hell in the Bible, not on the system of Samsara.

·        NML is strictly deontological, meaning that Aquinas would criticise the flexible teleological aspects of Buddhist ethics, such as the idea that there are times where actions such as abortion are acceptable.

Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Situation Ethics

·        Like in Fletcher's Situation Ethics, Buddhists also uphold love in their actions – meditation on love is a key aspect of Buddhist moral practice, and there are Buddhist texts such as the Brahma Viharas that encourage Buddhists to develop feelings of lovingkindness for all beings that are trapped in Samsara. Furthermore, the Mahayana Buddhism emphasis on compassion could be compared to the focus on agape love in Situation Ethics. This foundation seems to imply that Buddhists and Fletcher would come to the same conclusions about moral actions reducing harm in regard to human life and death. There could therefore be some agreement between Situation Ethics and Buddhism on all the human life and death issues, depending on the specifics of the situation. 

Counter-Argument: However, Buddhists do have moral absolutes aside from upholding love, meaning that they have a stricter view of ethics than Fletcher. This means that they are given specific rules regarding human life, such as do not murder or physically assault other humans. Buddhist monks also have a strict view of sexual conduct and are encouraged not to have sex or have children, as these actions form attachment, and Fletcher may not always see this as the most loving thing, as sex and children can bring one happiness, meaning embryo research such as IVF/Designer Babies would be acceptable. Fletcher’s love is also based on the example of Jesus, which would be irrelevant to Buddhists who follow Gautama as a moral figure.

Criticism of Buddhism from Situation Ethics:

 Agape love depends on an omnibenevolent creator God who has given us a model for morality in the form of Jesus.

·        SE has no moral absolutes, so would criticise the deontological rules of Buddhism – such as the 5 moral precepts of lay people.

·        Love is the most important moral characteristic, whereas Buddhists uphold the 8 parts of magga as being equally important – love is an extreme, overwhelming emotion that should outweigh all other obligations whereas the Buddhist focus on moderation could be seen by Situation Ethicists as a weak perspective.

Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Virtue Ethics

·        As we have seen, there are many similarities between Virtue Ethics and Buddhism, particularly regarding the creation of a good character to ensure that a person is moral. Virtue Ethics could be argued to fit most easily with Buddhism as it is secular in nature, meaning that it can be compared with Buddhist values in a way that other theories cannot (because they rely on a creator God). Furthermore, the fact that Virtue Ethics does not comment directly on issues such as the personhood of the embryo allows Buddhists to apply their own view of the embryo within the framework of perfecting their character. Virtue Ethics does encourage good moral action and sees murder as being wrong, which is similar to Buddhists who view murder as being a karmically wrong action – it therefore seems likely that the way that Virtue Ethicists treat humans would be similar to how Buddhists would treat humans. 

Counter-Argument: However, Virtue Ethics does depend on Aristotle’s view that there is no afterlife, and so the desire to become a good human is part of this belief that humans have one chance to aim for morality through cultivating the characteristics of the Golden Mean. Buddhists however base their ethics in the idea that their actions will be repaid through karma in Samsara, meaning that Buddhists are more likely to hold themselves accountable externally – they should not treat humans better because they have an obligation to perfect their character in their limited lives, but because if they don’t treat humans properly they will experience karmic punishment later on. It could be argued that Virtue Ethics focuses more on ‘intrinsic motivations’ (people being expected to want to be better people as they have one life and one chance to get it right) whereas Buddhists have ‘extrinsic motivations’ (Buddhists treat humans well because they are frightened of the karmic consequences they will otherwise receive).

Criticism of Buddhism from Virtue Ethics:

    Aristotle rejects the belief in the afterlife so argues that humans only have one lifetime to morally perfect themselves, meaning that they would reject the belief in Samsara that underpins Buddhist ethics.

·        Aristotle would reject the 227 rules of the Vinaya, arguing instead that it is more important to focus on building a moral character – Aristotle only provides 3 deontological rules in his framework (no lying, theft and adultery) meaning that his ethical theory is much more broad and less prescriptive than Buddhist ethics.

Comparing Attitudes to Life and Death: Buddhism and Utilitarianism

·        Utilitarians and Buddhists are often likely to perform similar actions when it comes to the treatment of humans, as both Bentham and Buddhists uphold the limitation of suffering as a good thing. Therefore, Buddhists and Bentham would act in a way that prevents humans from suffering, and takes into account the consequences of one’s actions. 

Counter-Argument: However, Bentham’s focus on pleasure would be unlike Buddhist understandings of pleasure – ultimately, pleasure is a bond that causes attachment and craving, Buddhists think it is better to live a moderate life that allows people to realise the nature of things, whereas Bentham sees human morality as allowing all beings to feel happiness, but may not recognise this happiness in a spiritual way (as Buddhists do). Furthermore, Bentham’s theory does not have moral absolutes, whereas Buddhism does have moral rules regarding the treatment of humans – no murder or harm being examples. Buddhists do not use humans as a means to an end, whereas Bentham would see this as acceptable as long as it benefitted the majority.

Criticism of Buddhism from Utilitarianism: 

        It is more important to maximise pleasure for the greatest number instead of following rules such as the Vinaya.

This is an Ethically Naturalist theory meaning that it equates “good” with “pleasure” – Buddhists do not always see good as pleasure because it causes craving and attachment, so Bentham would reject this.

Buddhists have scriptures and rules to guide them whereas Bentham argues that the Hedonic Calculus is the most important method for morality.

  Bentham rejected religion as a system for morality and saw ethics as needing to be secular, meaning he would reject the supernatural and authoritative aspects of the Buddha and Buddhist texts as the source of morality.

 How Buddhism may respond to the criticisms of Western Ethics.

Buddhist responses to the above criticisms:

·        Buddhist ethics are grounded in the dharma realised by Siddhartha Gautama, this gives them authority over and above the views of others, as the Buddha is an authority for all sects of Buddhist as the first being to gain enlightenment and preach the way to nirvana in this time-cycle. Ultimately, Buddhists are convinced that their understanding of Buddhist ethics is right, and more important that other religions and ethical systems, as they come from Gautama who has authority.

·        Buddhism has been proved to Buddhist believers through religious experiences, this makes the doctrine of Buddhism more authoritative for Buddhists than the ideas of other ethicists. Examples of religious experiences that Buddhists may have experienced include miracles, visions of the Buddha or a numinous/mystical experience through meditation.

·        Buddhist ethics are part of the wider teachings of Buddhism, which must be realised through self-authentication, meaning that believers have to try and test the dharma for themselves. They would argue that without trying Buddhist ethical practices, the above scholars would not have an opportunity to understand their truth.

·        The Buddha argued that other religious believers had only realised part of the dharma, this means that Buddhists would argue that it is better to follow the ethical guidance of Gautama than other moral teachers, as he is the only being that has realised the full moral dharma.

·        Buddhist ethics depend on a worldview based on Samsara and Karma, those that do not understand this worldview do not have a good understanding of ultimate reality and the way that the world functions, so they have an incorrect view (this particularly applies to scholars that express views on the afterlife – such as NML/SE/VE). 

Students - Now Try This:

Create a summary of views of human life and death from Christian and secular ethical belief systems.

Create a comparison paragraph between similarities and differences in Buddhist beliefs.

Explain how Buddhists may respond to criticisms from Western ethics. 

Create your conclusion - is there are dialogue here? Overall, do you think that Buddhists are likely to change their beliefs when they encounter Western ethical theories?  

Buddhist Attitudes to The Embryo - Applying Buddhism to Ethical Issues of Human Life and Death

 Author: Ruth Wood

What issues could you be asked to discuss in an exam when it comes to the Embryo?

Cloning

Reproductive Cloning: Creation of an identical copy of an organism, common in selective animal breeding, but illegal to clone humans.

Therapeutic Cloning (Stem-Cell Cloning): Clones biological material to produce embryos, from which stem cells can be taken to be used in research.

Therapeutic cloning is cloning that is performed for the purpose of medical treatment. It could theoretically be used to grow a replacement organ, for example, to generate skin for a burn victim, or to create nerve cells for someone suffering from brain damage or a neurological condition.

Embryo Research

Any research that involves fertilised human embryos – this is permitted in the UK as long as the embryo is not allowed to develop past a very early stage.

Examples:

IVF: fertilising an egg either by mixing it with sperm or by injecting a sperm cell into an ovum, before implanting this into a woman’s womb.

Genetic screening: checking the genetic makeup of fertilised embryos to see which ones should be implanted. Embryos with genetic abnormalities, such as diseases and disabilities, will be discarded and not implanted.

Designer Babies

A baby that has been genetically engineered to have certain traits – this may be to ensure that they do not have a genetic disease, but also to ensure that the child is of a certain gender or appearance.

Currently, babies are not “designed” for appearance, but this could become commonplace in the future for those who can afford to do so privately.

A less extreme version of “designer babies” is when a selection of fertilised embryos are screened, and the one with the desired traits is implanted into the mother – this baby is therefore not genetically engineered, it is just specially selected.

Abortion

An abortion is the medical process of ending a pregnancy so it doesn't result in the birth of a baby.

Most abortions in England, Wales and Scotland are carried out before 24 weeks of pregnancy.

They can be carried out after 24 weeks in certain circumstances – for example, if the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability.

Students - Now Try This: Create a one-paragraph summary of each of the ethical issues prescribed in human life and death relating to the Embryo. 

Buddhist Attitudes to the Embryo (Relevant to abortion, cloning, ‘designer’ babies and embryo research)

Abortion

Arguments Against Abortion

Generally, Buddhists oppose actions that harm the embryo such as abortion as they believe that life begins at conception. Peter Harvey (An Introduction to Buddhism, 1990) elaborates on this point: “Abortion is said to break the first precept as it cuts off precious human rebirth.” To begin with it is important to clarify an aspect of the Buddhist attitude to human life. Human life, as in other religions, is often seen as vitally important, even sacred. However, the reason for this is not that God has created it, but because a human birth provides a precious opportunity to gain enlightenment (which is very much more difficult if you are not human, e.g. an animal, a god, or a hungry ghost). So human life is valuable, but instrumentally valuable, i.e. as a means to an end. That end is enlightenment, not an ordinary worldly end, so this view could be called spiritual instrumentalism. When you apply this to abortion and put it together with traditional Buddhist belief in rebirth, this means that abortion is generally wrong, for the reason that it interferes with a human rebirth and thus prevents that being seeking enlightenment.

 Rebirth is usually believed to begin at conception, when the consciousness from the previous life (known as the garbha), craving a new rebirth, attaches itself to the fertilised egg [In the Theravada, this is seen as an instantaneous transfer from the previous body, but the Mahayana sees the transfer as occurring via an intermediate state (in Tibetan Buddhism known as the bardo) between death and rebirth, in which the consciousness wanders, eventually seeking new rebirth because of its fear of the apparent non-existence it encounters. So there is no doubt in traditional Buddhism that abortion is the killing of a person. Therefore, any action which results in the death of the foetus is seen as wrong because it cuts of “precious human rebirth” – this can be applied to abortion, cloning in instances where foetuses are destroyed, and embryo research that destroys the embryo.

Peter Harvey also comments Aborting a foetus causes bad karma, the karma is said to be worse if it is later on in the pregnancy (as the foetus is larger). This could imply that the Buddhist attitude to abortion is fairly deontological (the action is wrong because it is always seen to be murder).

Arguments Supporting Abortion

However, Buddhism could also be shown to have a more flexible attitude to abortion, Peter Harvey comments: Most Buddhists would accept abortion to save the mother’s life. And Abortion is common in post-war Japan [after the atomic bombs in World War Two caused foetal abnormalities] but women are said to attain for the act by praying that a bodhisattva helps their aborted child. Whilst abortion is clearly an undesirable act which causes negative karmic effects, Buddhist ethics cannot be described as purely deontological, as there are clearly flexible parameters for permitting an abortion, rendering it more similar to teleological ethical theories.

The rule of intention does mean that there are some instances where Buddhists may allow abortion, these could be compared to similar cases of Double Effect in Natural Moral Law. For example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, a doctor must remove a woman’s fallopian tube or the embryo from the fallopian tube, as it begins growing outside the uterus and if left untreated it will kill the mother. Aquinas would argue in this instance that ‘Double Effect’ applies – the doctor is performing a good action (preserving life through removing the fallopian tube) but an accidental effect of this is the death of a foetus, which contradicts the teachings of Thomist Ethics, however as the initial action was good it is morally permissible. Buddhist views on intention could be used to argue the same point: the doctor intended to save the woman’s life rather than kill the foetus, meaning the doctor would not get bad karma and has not performed an immoral action.

Students - Now Try This:

Create a for and against plan for a question on Buddhist attitudes to abortion, including an overall conclusion on how Buddhist attitudes to abortion could be summarised.

Embryo Research, including cloning of human embryos and the creation of designer babies

Objections to embryo research

More conservative and traditional (especially Theravada) Buddhists are very likely to object to embryo research.

1. Embryos are persons
Following the traditional Buddhist belief that human personhood begins at conception, when the personality from the previous life joins the fertilised egg, there is no difference between the moral status of the embryo during the first two weeks after fertilisation and its status later on after further development. The destruction of “spare” embryos in IVF would thus be killing of persons, which clearly goes against the first precept.

2. Indirect killing is no defence
Nor would it be accepted as a defence in Buddhism to say that embryo research aims mainly to preserve life, but involves the destruction of embryos as a side effect, so that the violence is indirect. Indirect violence is still treated as blameworthy in Buddhism, for example in the advice given about Right Livelihood: selling arms or poisons are seen as wrong livelihoods because these things are used to take life, and blame will attaches to the seller even though his/her role in the violence was indirect. Similarly, whilst embryo research only indirectly destroys human life, the scientist is still to blame for this.

3. The goals of embryo research may reflect greed
The idea that the killing of embryos is justified in order to save or improve other lives in the long run may also be questioned from a traditional Buddhist point of view, on the grounds that the goals of embryo research are themselves questionable. Stem cell research, for example, aims to be able to grow cloned organs in a tank as spare parts ready for transplantation. But if the price of this is the destruction of human life, it may be argued that the desire for such organs reflects greed and a lack of acceptance of the impermanence of the human body.

In favour of embryo research

Only a few radical, and most likely Western, Buddhists are likely to support embryo research on Buddhist grounds, by emphasising other aspects of Buddhist ethics

1. Personhood cannot be precisely identified
Some Western Buddhists may doubt traditional accounts of the rebirth process, either because they are doubtful, or at least agnostic, about rebirth itself, or because they accept rebirth but would not accept the traditional account of when and how it occurs. It might be argued that it is more in accordance with the findings of modern science to suggest that rebirth occurs gradually, and that karmic residues from a previous life are merged gradually with a developing foetus in the womb. They might also appeal to the Buddhist doctrine of insubstantiality (anatta) as pointing out that there is really no such category as “personhood” in Buddhism. According to this teaching, a 'person' is really just a set of processes to which we attach a label 'person'. When we should attach that label for moral purposes, then, is not very clear cut.

2. Killing varies in blameworthiness
Whether or not the embryo has the status of a 'person', to kill it would still be blameworthy under the first precept. However, there is a also a traditional recognition in Buddhism that the killing of a larger animal is a more serious matter than that of a smaller animal, as it requires more effort and deliberate action. For this reason, late abortion is still considered more blameworthy than early abortion, and research on embryos would thus be killing, but not such blameworthy killing as that involved in abortion or other types of killing of humans.

3. The Middle Way
Finally, the Middle Way may be invoked to support a more moderate approach to embryo research. More traditional and conservative forms of Buddhist ethics simply exclude any serious consideration of the advantages of embryo research, or of the desires that lead to it, but the more basic Buddhist teaching of the Middle Way would suggest that these advantages, and the desire to help others which lies behind embryo research, should be recognised and taken into account. Simply holding onto the fixed idea that we should not kill involves eternalism, whilst abandoning our responsibility towards embryos involves nihilism. Perhaps a moderate position avoiding both extremes would involve trying to recognise ways in which embryos are not in fact persons whilst acknowledging our responsibility towards them as potential persons. This might lead to trying to minimise any unnecessary experimentation on embryos, but supporting experimentation which stands a good chance of relieving suffering, such as much stem cell research.

Students - Now Try This:

Create a for and against plan for a question on Buddhist attitudes to using the embryo, including an overall conclusion on how Buddhist attitudes to the embryo could be summarised.