[joulseenjoync]

(To) Cure sometimes, treat often, comfort always. Hippocrates

This about sums up what the practice of medicine should be. There is no point in prolonging life if the patient is suffering from a terminal disease with no hope of cure. All that can be done in such cases is to provide relieve from pain in the body and let nature takes it's course. The aggregates are coming to an end and whether one accepts or not isn't going to change the truth. Prolonging life needlessly would not be in keeping with wisdom.

Mercy killing is wrong as one is under the delusion that there is a "person" to kill. The way the question is asked already assumes that there is a self, so the answer has to be no. It has already fallen from the Middle Way ie. eternalism/nihilism.

[!!!maryann!!!]

I think that people cling on to the notion of how precious human life is so that their own life seems more meaningful and precious. This selfishness causes many people to suffer needlessly on their deathbed.

To cause somebody else to suffer in pursuit of your own selfish desires is morally wrong in my opinion.

Mercy killing is wrong as one is under the delusion that there is a "person" to kill.

Suffering is real whether the self is or not.

[LSg44PDu]

Today I discovered this story at the BBC:
Wife-killing Yorkie advert man walks free from court

Hi Hajurba,

Your question reminds me of an incident when I was a child in Scotland. I was walking along a country road between two villages when I saw in the distance an animal moving strangely along the road. On approaching, I saw it was a rabbit. It's eyes were atrociously swollen with what I supposed was myxomatosis. The poor animal was completely disoriented and obviously very ill.

In my child's mind the solution to its plight was very simple. All I had to do was find a solid stick and give it a firm wallop on the head. After finding a suitable branch along the side of the road I had no trouble approaching the animal and giving it a solid clout on the head with all the force available in my infant arms.

To my shock it refused to comply to my scheme and stubbornly held onto life. I found myself caught looped into a cycle of violence. The more I hit the animal, the worse its condition. To this day, I cannot actually remember the outcome. It was an awful experience that marked me very profoundly. I thought, in my child logic that I could help this creature by 'putting it out of its misery'. I assumed it would be so simple. I hadn't realised that life was not for playing with and the rabbit still had its life to play out. It was not prepared for death and wanted none of it.

Thinking of the couple in the BBC story, I know from experience its not easy living with a convalescent or a dying person. It demands a special devotional energy that is hard to stay connected to in our selfish society that prefers to distance itself from the reality of serious illness or dying.

Kindest regards

Gyaltsen

[XGoFivk7]

I hadn't realised that life was not for playing with and the rabbit still had its life to play out. It was not prepared for death and wanted none of it.

Thanks for sharing your experiences, it must have been traumatic to have experienced that as a child. I do not see a rabbit being killed against its will as the same as a person consciously wishing to die (especially if the body likely would have died already if not for modern science forcing the individual to hold on).

Both beating the rabbit, and modern science holding onto life, are human attempts to go against the natural process of life and death. And like in beating the rabbit, modern science often creates further needless suffering in the process. Of course it all hinges on the individual's wishes, which unlike a rabbit can often be communicated prior to action being taken.

Of course the individual isn't given a say in the matter, and instead is usually forced to suffer until the day that they inevitably pass away.

[kesFockplek]

Hi Compassus,

Thanks for the reply. I completely agree that there is no comparison to make between a rabbit being killed against its will and a person consciously wishing to die.


I took this from Wikipedia:

Euthanasia conducted with the consent of the patient is termed voluntary euthanasia. Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Passive voluntary euthanasia is legal throughout the U.S. per Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health. When the patient brings about his or her own death with the assistance of a physician, the term assisted suicide is often used instead. Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Montana. I know that modern science needs to develop compassion in its 'quest for life'. Some countries and states have legislated to take the burden away from the technicians (when I say technicians, I mean medical staff in hospitals etc.). I assume this leaves space for choice. I really don't know.

A young friend of mine here in France died a few years ago from cancer. My friend, family and the medical team decided together that it was the end and there was no point in keeping him going and he died painlessly on a May morning after having said goodbye to the ones he loved. It sounds very simple, doesn't it.

Kindest regards

Gyaltsen