What does religion say about “Euthanasia” for the terminally ill?

Answer 1

Actually the issue of Euthanasia is somewhat ambiguous in Buddhism. One would think that because of the 1st precept of ahimsa (literally non-injury) it would be fairly straightforward, however it is not. There are of course concerns regarding the suffering and pain of the individual who is terminally ill as well as karmic retribution for ending a life. euthanasia in its voluntary and non-voluntary forms.
When evaluating whether Buddhist doctrine permits euthanasia several things need to be taken into account, one of which is the importance that is placed on the state of mind that a person is in at the time of death. Buddhism places great importance on this moment in a person’s life because of the fact that it believed to be the transition point between the current life and the next. If the mind is in a clear, conscious, and un-agitated state it will account towards producing a positive rebirth. If, however, the mind is in an agitated state clouded by drugs or pain the effect that it has on the subsequent rebirth is inherently negative. Thus, it can be argued that active voluntary euthanasia is permissible in order to create a state of mind that will cause an auspicious rebirth. However, the argument using this logic can also be made for the opposing side as well: if at the last moment of life their thoughts are focused upon self destruction, then the state of mind is negative and thus produces a negative rebirth.
Justification for active voluntary or active non-voluntary euthanasia is easily found within Buddhism. The support is documented in any Buddhist doctrine that emphasizes compassion. . If a person were to actively carry out euthanasia the only acceptable motivation for this would be out of compassion for that person’s pain. However, a thorough examination of intention must be undertaken in order to be sure that any selfish motives do not exist before committing to the act. If one finds that there are motivations other than pure compassion (such as inheritance or mounting medical bills) then this act should not be carried out since these other variables may be motivating the individual. Also, a person needs to examine whether their compassion is true, or simply reacting to an aversion to the pain that they are witnessing within the other person. . Is it truly compassion for the person or is watching someone in pain make them see the impermanence of all things and then instills in them the wish to flee from this reality? Further, disease that the loved-one is afflicted with may be caused by that person’s past karma and that in ending the pain they are feeling in this life does not prevent the same pain in future lives. Also, a person must fully accept that if they are going to take a person’s life there may be karmic retributions for this. Bodhisattvas are said to have compassion ensconced within their hearts and as such would be willing to sacrifice a future life in a hell realm in order to relieve the pain of another. However, non-voluntary euthanasia in the active form is almost surely unsupported by Buddhist ethics since it contrasts with the regard for personal choice within Buddhism. Consequently, it is this same regard for choice that allows legroom in situations where one must chose between euthanasia and other options.
It seems that there are situations wherein euthanasia is permitted within Buddhism provided the intention on the part of all involved is correct. The Dalai Lama has stated that in situations where a person is terminally ill, in great pain, with no chance at recovery, or is in a vegetative state that euthanasia is permissible according to Mahayàna Buddhist ethics provided that the basic motivation for such an act is compassion, of course (Parrett, page 307). However, one must thoroughly examine the repercussions of such a choice both karmically as well as how such an act will impact their future state of mind in this life. Needless to say, making such a decision should never be taken lightly, but Buddhism allows individuals to make a personal choice regarding to their own health care and those who they are legally responsible.
The above is true for both Thervada and Mahayana forms of Buddhism - I wrote a paper on the subject (and abortion) for my Buddhism course while in college and still had the paper on my hard drive. Hope you found it helpful.

Answer 2

all we can do is go to bible accounts of how they avoided torture and capture by suicide. [a painful death]
Enoch lived prier to the flood with violent people and it was a dangerous time for a person who was serving God.
Genesis 5:21 He only lived 365 years at a time when they lived 900 years. To prevent torture by those people God took him.
In other words he died, or was killed to avoid a painful death.
! Samuel 31:4 Saul committed sucide. He knew he would die a horrible death. They would torture him.
In Masada I read where when they took over the city all the people were dead. they killed themselves to avoid the horrible death the conquers had for them.
How is that different than escaping the painful death of an illness.
Soldiers in battle when they knew they would not survive the injuries and feared capture and what was going to happen killed themselves. No where in the bible does it say that you can't except that it is murder. But if someone is already brain dead?
How is that murder? God grants us life as a privilege not a right. Those who are wicked do not live forever, they die.
Some people don't want to live, why should they have to live if they don't want to. That doesn't make any sense, they can't help being born. And if they choose to leave they should have that right. But, without a very good reason I doubt God would resurrected them in the future. I mean if they didn't like it the first time why try again?
When someone loves his pet so much and can't stand to see him suffer, what does he do? He has him put to sleep that is the kind thing to do.

Answer 3

Depends on the religion.

As far as I'm aware, Wicca does not have an official stance on Euthenasia. However, we have the Rede, which requires that we harm none. If someone is terminally ill and in great pain, then letting them suffer for weeks, months, or even a few days is incredibly harmful for them. So, I would think it would depend on the type of terminal illness they are suffering from.

)O(

Answer 4

I think as of yet, the Law has not made it legal. I am against euthanasia, and I don't think the law would ever make it legal because where would you draw the line? What if a parent should decide that thier disabled child should be euthanised? It has already happened in canada.

Answer 5

The seriousness of this new threat to the sacredness of human life is evident in its growing practice and perceived legitimacy. In 1996, six percent of surveyed physicians indicated they had actually complied with a request for physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.1 In 1998, the first legally sanctioned assisted suicides occurred under Oregon’s assisted-suicide law.2 Assisted suicide is openly endorsed in public opinion polls, medical journals, court opinions, and legislative debates. As Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop predicted in 1979, "With arbitrary abortion already declared legal, the speed with which the other forms of killing are being accepted must take even their advocates by surprise."

For more on this. go to:
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_4193_assisted_suicide.cfm

Answer 6

Buddhism says it's "harmful" and therefore not correct action.

Reason: based on the understanding that everyone dies and the perceptions of the "suffering" of the terminally ill by any individual, who's not properly trained their mind, may not be correct perception. It's inappropriate to act from incorrect perception of ANY given situation.

_()_

Answer 7

Well, religion doesn't offer the truth, only a lie to make peoples lives easier. Therefore, it makes sense not to base the decision on religion.

Answer 8

1 Timothy 1:9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers

Answer 9

In the Gospels, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, spoke of healing the sick therefore, as Christ's followers we should take care of the sick and not put them to death.

Answer 10

In the Catholic Faith it is forbidden. We are not the determining factor as to who lives or dies it is for the Lord to decide.