Comments On Euthanasia

I would like to address some of the comments and observations made on my four previous posts on euthanasia. Konchog said that his teacher would disagree with my assertion that euthanasia could sometimes be in the best interest of the pain-wracked terminal patient. His teacher would take the position that we 'do not know if that being has exhausted the dominate kammas to be in that form and condition.' By this I assume that Konchog's teacher believes that the pain a terminal patient is feeling must be due to some negative past kamma and by ending their life or assisting them in ending their life we would be doing nothing more than postponing their negative kamma until the next life. This is a common Buddhist argument against euthanasia. I cannot speak for the Mahayana/Vajrayana position on this matter, but early Buddhism most strongly asserts that the belief that everything we experience in this life (pleasant, painful or neutral) is due to something done in the past, is one of the three false and pernicious misunderstandings. And one would not have to be Einstein to see why. It implies absolute determinism. Following from this the Buddha says that the diseases and sicknesses we may fall prey to have a variety of causes, only one of which is kamma. Common sense and empirical observation would tell us that someone with liver cancer is experiencing pain because the tumor is disrupting the healthy functioning of their liver, not because of any morally negative act they did previously.
Related to this is, Indigoblue's comment, 'How can you be sure that an individual's intentions are compassionate or not?' Perhaps we cannot be 100% sure that this is the case but I think any relatively self-aware person knows when they are feeling at any one time. I cannot be 100% sure that a doctor contemplating euthanatizing a terminal patient is doing so out of compassion but inquiries may make things more clear. I think we can be sure of a doctors good intentions in such cases as we can be in other cases. But there is one thing we can have little doubt about - that a patient writhing in agony and begging for release knows what they want.
Dyanne related how a friend experiencing unbearable mental suffering committed suicide ,which is always a tragedy and often has a devastating effect on those they leave behind. However, I do feel that suicide in such cases is somewhat different and less acceptable than in the case of a terminal patient. In the case of the first, things could (in most cases) always change and improve. This is not so with a terminal patient.
Both Paulo and Vasile drew my (our) attention to the Channovada Sutta (M.III,264-66). In this sutta Venerable Chamma is sick, in pain and wants to 'use the knife.' Sariputta urges him not to. We are not told whether Channa's condition was terminal or not. Whatever the case, he did later commit suicide. Sariputta informed the Buddha of this and asked what would be his destiny in his next life. The Buddha replied, 'When one lays down this body and clings to a new body, then I say that one is blameworthy. But this was not so with Channa and therefore he used the knife blamelessly.' It would appear from this that Channa was a highly developed person and that between the time he 'used the knife' (i.e. cut his wrists or his throat) and he died he was able to be totally detached and therefore attain enlightenment. If this is was so, it's hard to understand why he could not have been equally detached from the pain caused by his sickness. Either way, the story suggests that killing (suicide or euthanasia) need not necessarily have negative results.
For more on kammic determinism and the causes of diseases go to http://www.buddhismatoz.com/ and have a look at 'Determinism' and 'Sickness and Health.' See also my post of 24, 10, 2008.