What is the Sikh Attitude to Euthanasia/Mercy Killiing?

What is the Sikh attitude to Euthanasia?

http://www.sikhanswers.com/modern-yo...mercy-killing/

Sikhs would not encourage euthanasia as it is God who gives and takes life.

ਜਾ ਆਏ ਤਾ ਤਿਨਹਿ ਪਠਾਏ ਚਾਲੇ ਤਿਨੈ ਬੁਲਾਇ ਲਇਆ ||
“They come when the Lord sends them; when the Lord calls them back, they go.”
(Ang 907)

Suffering is part of human life and has a place in God’s scheme. Sikhs pray for the grace, strength and courage to endure and accept pain. One should accept what God gives as an expression of the divine will, however if a person is in a permament vegetative state then to stop giving life-prolonging drugs would be considered as acceptable by most.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/33308-what-sikh-attitude-euthanasia-mercy-killiing.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308

Any other views on this topic? ***

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

__________________
rsingh's blog

rsingh ji

I do appreciate your posting this question. It is rich with discussion points and connections with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. Also know that I enjoy your blog, and am impressed by your current article on eco-criminals.

to SPN. Let's see the discussion unfold.

An Overview on Euthanasia; Are We The Master Of Our Own Destiny?

Euthanasia and its challenges to determine the right to live or die is an inquiry that people have been muddling about for years. The issue of euthanasia seems to go far beyond the question of life and death. It rather tries to determine the type of death: an agonized death or peaceful death.

Living in a world full of freedom our future is believed to be in our control. We have the right to stay inquisitive in search for answers in our democratic society. Yet, this liberty of control of mind and body is restricted. Do we really have the right to die? Yes, we have the right for natural death but in the case of death faced through terminal illness or complete mental disability, our right to die is limited. In the latter, the decisions are laid to the discretion of doctors treating a patient having a terminal illness (incurable illness: about to die). A joint agreement between a doctor and patient can be formed to initiate euthanasia, which is illegal in many countries. However, if the patient is mentally handicapped, the issue of who should have the supreme right to choose between death and life arises? The topic euthanasia starts right here, with the right to die and to breach life towards death.

The medical dilemma of euthanasia is found in its definition. It is defined as a deliberate act to ease the death of a patient who is experiencing a painful disease or a fatal one. According, to Professor Joseph Fletcher of Pastoral Theology and Social Ethics, Cambridge Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge Massachusetts, medical practitioners are faced with a contradiction in the Hippocratic Oath that they operate under. The Oath pledges that doctors should first relieve suffering, and secondly, protect and prolong life of people. Anytime, when a doctor has a patient undergoing a terminal illness, he is faced with these two mutually paradoxical objectives. In other words, if life is prolonged the promise of relieving pain is ‘usually’ forgone and if pain is relieved through death the promise of protecting and prolonging life is broken.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308

Believers and non-believers in God stammer to find answers to resolve this cruel dilemma. The tendency of religions and even the American Law seem to condemn the right to end a life on freewill and good faith of behalf of a patient to do so. The opportunity to start a life has always been our right but ending it has been a life-time question for years. Today, even agreeing to die once you are mentally capable to take the decision isn’t enough. For instance, a doctor or any other person who performs euthanasia is liable to a charge of murder irrespective of the condition of the patient. In other words if the patient is consented, then the patient is also liable to a charge of suicide. Human life is considered so sacred that regardless of the situation, taking a life is inherently wrong.

From Where Did The Idea of Wrong Emerge?

The idea that euthanasia is wrong comes from modern times. It is not directly an ancient religious or philosophical saying. For instance, our most known philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle and Pythagoras did all confirm that murdering and suicide should be condemned. However, merciful death was a common exception for all of them. They believed that if someone is in an incurable state of suffering they might need some help to set a stop to their agonizing death. Moreover, neither the Bible nor the Koran does explicitly condemn suicide. In the 10 commandments, which are common across Holy Scripture for Jews, Muslims and Christians the argument against the right to die is slightly, mentioned. The Sixth Commandment defies the right to die, stating “Thou Shalt Not Kill” which in simple English means “should not murder”. This is a strong theological argument against euthanasia, but does it really condemn merciful death? This is a question faced by various religions. It is commonly interpreted by saying that human life is too sacred, to be taken by anyone expect by God.

In 2002, the Netherland became the first country to legalize doctor –assisted suicide. Around 20% of the death toll in the country is from euthanasia and it is believed that out of this 12% is involuntary. The consent or acknowledgement of doctor-assisted suicide gave rise to illegal dilemma of falsified proof of death willingness. Imagine the ramifications of legalizing euthanasia. People would live in fear, instead of having doctors willing to treat patient, there would be doctors ready to kill them instead. Another, example where euthanasia brought horror was in the Nazi German experiences where the atrocity was the Holocaust. People were eliminated simply because they were considered unworthy of life. The catastrophe of merciful killing ended with around 200,000 people being brutally murdered.

The amoral consequence of the euthanasia epidemic is sweeping into the ears of politicians and governmental actions. However, advocating legally assisted-suicide might be a boundary that should not be trespassed. This is due to human beings’ inherent dignity. According to United Nation Universal Declaration of Human Rights, dignity is the first and foremost right of any individual. If a person is killed, he or she is then objectified and the sanctity of life violated. It is precisely this dehumanizing aspect of euthanasia that makes it so controversial. Our very societies are built on value systems venerating heroism, courage, sacrifice and martyrs. People as Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi are idolized because they have endured pain just as Christ himself when he was crucified. Therefore, euthanasia is widely rejected as accepting pain is at times an essential feature denoting strength in a person. Decriminalizing euthanasia would be synonymous to subverting our value system into weakness and cowardice.

Nowadays, there are even countries reckoned for death tourism. In Switzerland, there are approximately 400 assisted suicide cases per annum and of which around 130 of them are from abroad. Assisted suicide has been allowed in the country since the 1940s, by people who do not have a vested interest in the death. Until now in Europe only Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherland allows euthanasia. In United States it is only the state of Oregon, which supports it. Moreover, death tourism is stirring a negative image on Switzerland and the government is enforcing laws to minimize the effect. They are trying to avoid assisted-suicide to become a profit-driven business. Already many have enrolled to right-to-die organizations like the Swiss group Dignitas. Many of the legal suicide conducted lack sufficient documentation to assure that euthanasia is the sole recourse. It is also practically wrong that people who are in a terminal illness have to travel across thousands of miles away from their homecountry for the sake of a peaceful death. Holiday euthanasia is the last vacation a person ever does but the government in Switzerland is trying to set a stop by establishing restrictions on the duration of how many months one has to stay in the country to be eligible.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308

Death tourism is one aspect promoting euthanasia, individuals and organizations are making it public. There are individuals who are currently coined as Dr. Death, be it in America, Australia or any other parts of the world. In Australia, we have Dr. Philip Nitschke, who is the founder of a pro-euthanasia group namely Exit International. He was also the first doctor to administer a legal and voluntary lethal injection. Exit international has developed several approaches for death. For instance, the exit bag and CoGen is one. The CoGen device generates carbon monoxide to fill the exit bag, which is placed in a manner that you will inhale the gas. Another, advance apparatus is the Exit euthanasia device that uses conventional barbecue gas bottles that contain nitrogen, adhesive tape, plastic suicide bags and some plastic tubing. Nitschke considered this method as being “flawless”. When pure nitrogen is inhaled by an individual, he or she will immediately, (12 seconds) lose consciousness and depart in a few minutes.

In America, we have Jack Kevorkian who was coined as “Dr. Death” due to his assistant to people who committed suicide. It was in 1990, that Kevorkian was involved in his first physician-assisted suicide of a patient suffering from Alzheimer’s disease in the state of Oregon. He was charged for murder but the case was dismissed to ambiguity in the Michigan law. Now, he has assisted many hundred suicides. He was condemned by the Michigan law in March 26, 1999 of second-degree murder and released on parole in June 1, 2006. In most of the cases, homemade devices or intravenous chemicals were injected to conduct the assisted suicide. Moreover, he is known for saying that “dying is not a crime”. Yet, he agrees that administrating death can become abusive or be wrongly used. For instance, someone might be administrating death but might later regret it (Alzheimer cases).

Permitting suicidal death through euthanasia would hinder the immense efforts put forward through life extension. It would even render medical triumphs such as heart transplant futile. Today, medical science technology might not be able to alleviate all types of diseases or old age related illnesses. Yet, soon healthy living might potentially be offered to the most deprived and desperate case of Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and other pathology might be curable. Killing yourself before cures arrive would be rueful.

http://www.immortalhumans.com/an-ove...r-own-destiny/

IMHO
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308

Euthanasia is the conscious and deliberate act of taking a life no matter what the motive. So in a just war (dharam judh) permission is assumed to take life. The conditions however for dharam yudh are clear. Can any defensible parallels or connections be drawn between these two ideas, euthanasia and dharam judh?

Waheguruji Ka Khalsa
Waheguruji Ki Fateh!

Sikhs should not encourage euthanasia as it is God who gives and takes life.

ਜਾ ਆਏ ਤਾ ਤਿਨਹਿ ਪਠਾਏ ਚਾਲੇ ਤਿਨੈ ਬੁਲਾਇ ਲਇਆ ||
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308
“They come when the Lord sends them; when the Lord calls them back, they go.”
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308

(Ang 907)

I humbly subscribe to this view but I have my own reasons for voting in favor of euthanasia because I have seen from close quarters a case where in the person concerned was a terminally ill patient & was diagnosed as same & was in coma for 6 months but was kept alive by using various machines

Does Gurbani any where mention that the person should be kept alive by force feeding or by use of the modern latest state of the art machinery

The person concerned was having bed sores & if the assistance was not provided the person could have died only because of bed sores.

The point was that the Lord had called them back but the modern doctors probably due to their own vested (read monetary) interests keep the person alive unnaturally; in the guise of Hippocrates Oath though the Oath states that the doctor will alleviate the pain but does he do that? He is least bothered because he has personally not experienced the pain; but is looking at the monetary benefits involved.

If there is any doctor (read private practioneer) in this forum can he honestly say that he has followed the Oath in its character & spirit & with complete moral honesty (please do not split hairs)

OK now we go forward how many doctors can honestly say that they have not deliberately prescribed those medicines which have been aggressively pushed by the Medical Representatives of a company who is giving them maximum benefits in cash or kind (remember there is no free lunch)

Thus what I want to say is that once it is determined that there is a terminally ill patient then the life supporting mechanism should be withdrawn forthwith & no external support should be provided to prolong life

How ever by definition euthanasia is when life supporting mechanism is withdrawn for a terminally ill patient.

In the end I will only advocate for withdrawing life supporting mechanism for a terminally ill patient.


Sat Sri Akalji

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Wahegur ji ki Fateh.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308

Please read this true story of a devout Sikh.

About three years ago a serving Colonel of the Indian army told me this real story about his father who had served for a long time in the Sikh Regiment and is famous for writing a book on the Hindi Words of Command as used in all three Armed Forces of India. He had retired with the rank of Subedar Major and an honorary Captain living a retired life in Jalandhar city.

About three years ago, he was waiting on the pavement near the bus stand when a Santro car driven by a tipsy youth jumped the foot high pavement and hit the old man. He was injured. Bleeding profusely he was rushed to the Military Hospital Jalandhar Cant. His son, the serving Colonel who is married to my niece, rushed from Delhi Cant where he was posted.

The injured honorary Captain was on a drip and his condition was still stable. According to the hospital staff, (as told to his son) he had been reciting Gurbani orally ever since he was brought to the hospital.

After one day, he suddenly got up and called the medical staff in the presence of his son and told them to remove the drip. Then he sat down on the bed, called out the Fateh as loudly as he could and closed his eyes. He started reciting Gurbani which -his son told me- sounded like the Sohila :the last prayer before we retire for the night. Everyone was watching. As the prayer ended, they could all see that he had stopped breathing. His son reached forward, took him in his arms and lay him down on the bed. And he told the medical staff that he was no more.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308

They checked his pulse and he was really no more.

What would you call that?

I have one suggestion. Abide by the Hukum. A devout Sikh will know when the time has come.

Be a devout Sikh. Don’t hanker after Maya.

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Wahegur ji ki Fateh.

Strange as it may seems. Before my birth my grand father was surfing from terminal illness.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308
After many years of suffering he asked to read certain chapter from gita. As the chapter finished. He died.

I can not explain how that worked plus I was not there.

I believe that if person is suffering he or she should die dignity. He/she should not suffer for too long.

I have written in my will that if I go in coma wait for 3days. If I don’t wake up pull the plug and give my body to medical college. There should not be any funeral or any path pooja.

Terminal illness or the loss of essential bodily functions through disease or accident can make a person solely dependent on others, paid or otherwise. Apart from all else, the dependency robs a person of the very Dignity that he prizes above all else, even Life.

In such extreme cases Euthanasia should be available legally. Whether it is ultimately used or not should be left to individual choice.

SSA ALL,
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=33308

Heart warming to see this topic!

Pratice, pratice, practice the NAAM, Feel the difference, then practice FOR REST of Your LIFE!

Read and Practice The Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji!
For the REST of Your LIFE!

All your questions will be answered, Period.