# What Is The Sikh Attitude To Euthanasia/Mercy Killiing?



## rsingh (Nov 21, 2010)

*What is the Sikh attitude to Euthanasia?*

http://www.sikhanswers.com/modern-youth-issues/sikh-attitude-to-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.

Any other views on this topic?


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 21, 2010)

*Re: What is the Sikh attitude to Euthanasia?*

rsingh ji

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

welcomekaur to SPN. Let's see the discussion unfold.


----------



## Admin (Nov 21, 2010)

*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.

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.

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-overview-on-euthanasia-are-we-the-master-of-our-own-destiny/


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 21, 2010)

IMHO

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?


----------



## RAVINDER PAL SINGH (Nov 22, 2010)

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 ||
“They come when the Lord sends them; when the Lord calls them back, they go.”

(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


----------



## Tejwant Singh1 (Nov 22, 2010)

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Wahegur ji ki Fateh.

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. 

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.


----------



## seeker3k (Nov 22, 2010)

Strange as it may seems. Before my birth my grand father was surfing from terminal illness.
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.


----------



## Harry Rakhraj (Nov 22, 2010)

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.


----------



## Simranman1 (Nov 22, 2010)

SSA ALL,

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. *


----------



## spnadmin (Nov 22, 2010)

I voted "no" because euthanasia is not the same thing as removing life support, or with-holding life-support to prolong a life whose quality is quickly deteriorating.

Euthanasia is actively taking a life, according to a public policy or cultural norms that state the conditions under which a person *no longer deserves to live.
*

In Holland where euthanasia is legal, ethical minds have already begun to note the excess of pressure that families and agencies put on the elderly to end their own lives.

Read this thread to see how far out of bounds cultural acceptance of euthanasia can go. 

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main47.asp?filename=Ne201110Maariyamma.asp

Pressure to euthanise is nearly always the result of economics. A sick, handicapped or elderly person uses up " too many resources"  and therefore should "agree" to be put down. 

The decision to withhold life support or to remove life support is very different. This happens when medical personnel and family come together and jointly explore the ethical problems of keeping someone alive who would otherwise die. They decide whether to prolong a life, not to take a life away.


----------



## Tejindersinghdelhi (Nov 23, 2010)

rsingh said:


> *What is the Sikh attitude to Euthanasia?*
> 
> http://www.sikhanswers.com/modern-youth-issues/sikh-attitude-to-mercy-killing/
> 
> ...


 

Dear Tejwant Singh Ji,

waheguru ji ka khalsa, waheguru ji ki fateh.

I entirely agree with you and am in full agreemnt with the determination of a Gursikh who new that his end is near.  We should work to rellieve those in pain by "gurbani" Kirtan" etc., and not by removing the life support system.  The God only knows when to cut the threat of life.  We also believe that God is given everyone person a fixed amount of "swas".  We are no body to judge when to take away the "swas" of a terminally ill person.  A terminally ill person will continue to live so long as it is the sweet "will" of the God.   Moreover any premature sanctioning of death will only cause unbearable pain as every death causes such pain.  " Jind nimani kadhios haddan koo karkai".  Jor na jeevan, maran na jor.  We should not interfer in the system of God in the matter of life and death.  It amounts to murdering a person.  Life and death are better left to the "Will" of God. 

Regards,

Tejinder Singh delhi. 

To mind, the mercy killing, is not permitted in Gurbani.


----------



## Tejindersinghdelhi (Nov 23, 2010)

rsingh said:


> *What is the Sikh attitude to Euthanasia?*
> 
> http://www.sikhanswers.com/modern-youth-issues/sikh-attitude-to-mercy-killing/
> 
> ...


 

Dear all,

Gurmat does not encourage mercy killing.  Gurbani says "Jeha chiri likhia, tehe hukam kamahen, ghale awayen Nanak, sade uthi jahe"  God only sends persons to this world and he only calls them back.  So the human beings are not in the loop of " Janam and Maran".  In Japuji Sahib, Guru Nanak Dev Ji has written " Jor na jeevan, maran na jor". If anyone does try to interfere in the realm of God, he can only be called a "transgression" into the realm of God and charged with "murder".  According to Gurbani, unbearable pain is generated when a person dies. " Jind Nimani kadhios, haddan koo karkai".  So we should make all out efforts to relieve a terminally ill person from the pain by all ways and means, as is the funda in medical science, rather than withdrawal of a medical support system.  A person continue to take breath so long as he God allows him to take breath.  A person dies even if the support system is on.  So we should not encourage  murders.  So gurmat does not permit "mercy killings"

Regards,

Tejinder Singh Delhi.


----------



## passingby (Nov 23, 2010)

I have thought on this issue many times. I really think there can be no single fit-for-all answer. It has to vary from case to case. 

God being the cause of each and everything, would remain to be a cause for all actions whether these are done by human will or occur due to natural causes. So if I kill a being, the act has ultimately been done by God. Guru Nanak also says in Japji, everything happens under hukam. When he says everything, he means 'everything'. God's Will remains a common factor in every action that happens.

It is said suffering is caused by our past karmas so it seems apt that we should let the suffering run its course. But on the other hand the results of karma are inevitable and if we cut the suffering short, it will start again in the next life, we are just putting it on hold. But in the meantime, the soul might get a chance to create positive karma, which might decrease the suffering meant to be.

But will killing oneself be equal to running away from life? I think so too. But let me take up an example. Lets say my house catches fire. Should I run out of it, and save myself from suffering? If my body has been diseased beyond any hope of salvage, would it be wrong to leave the body?

 The important consideration is probably the state of mind when it dies and the state it goes into after death. In western world there is a lot of popular discussion on state of mind after death. It is generally accepted (by those who involve themselves in such discussions) that when a being dies with a lot of emotional 'knots', the mind gets caught up in the negative inertia, it cannot 'move on' to the next life, whatever it is. I tend to agree with this. 

Another aspect. Baba Farid says:

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:WordDocument>   <w:View>Normal</w:View>   <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>   <wunctuationKerning/>   <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>   <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>   <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>   <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>   <w:Compatibility>    <w:BreakWrappedTables/>    <w:SnapToGridInCell/>    <w:WrapTextWithPunct/>    <w:UseAsianBreakRules/>    <wontGrowAutofit/>   </w:Compatibility>   <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>  </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>  <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">  </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style>  /* Style Definitions */  table.MsoNormalTable     {mso-style-name:"Table Normal";     mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;     mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;     mso-style-noshow:yes;     mso-style-parent:"";     mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;     mso-para-margin:0in;     mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;     mso-pagination:widow-orphan;     font-size:10.0pt;     font-family:"Times New Roman";     mso-ansi-language:#0400;     mso-fareast-language:#0400;     mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->ਫਰੀਦਾ ਬਾਰਿ ਪਰਾਇਐ ਬੈਸਣਾ ਸਾਂਈ ਮੁਝੈ ਨ ਦੇਹਿ ॥
ਜੇ ਤੂ ਏਵੈ ਰਖਸੀ ਜੀਉ ਸਰੀਰਹੁ ਲੇਹਿ ॥੪੨॥
(Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Sloka Sheikh Farid ji ke, pg 1380)

Is Baba Farid asking for death over a life of dependency?


----------



## JimRinX (Nov 23, 2010)

I watched my Mother die of a 10 cm Tumor on her neck; one which, though removed three times, and irradiated until she looked like a well-done steak, kept growing back again and again.
Though she died in April of 1995, when she told me that she had a "lump, on her neck" in November of 1994, I could tell by the look in her eye that she knew her time had come; and it was 'standard procedure' in my family, after watching my Moms Mom die a 'second death' from the Chemotherapy (which led my Granfather to have a Hospital Bed put in his Dining Room, hire a Nurse, and then Die In Peace - No Chemo, No Puking, No Suffering!) that was used to treat the Final Stages of her Cancer - though even the Doctors admitted that there was only a 5% Chance of it working, by that point in the progression opf her Disease.
I know that God would not have condemned my Mother if we'd have brought in "Dr. Death" to end her suffering; she used to talk about how much she admired the Native Americans - and one of the things she thought was very Noble about their Cultural Traditions, was that, "When a Native american got so old that they were a burden upon their family and/or Community, they would go and sit by a rock and wait for something to eat them."
There is, however, a Fine Line that should never be crossed here; like the one Hitlers NAZI's crossed with their "Tiergarten 4" Program, in which they killed off every single disabled person in Germany during their too-long term in Power.
I'm disabled, and I would have been killed by them - though I have a 158 IQ, and will Die a Degreed Doctor of Sciences, or Die Unhappy.
They also killed off all of the Gays; so it's fitting that Alan Turing, a very, very gay Man, built the Brainiac Computer behind Churchills "Ultra".
No offense intended to any "Subra" fans out there; we Americans threw out the British too!


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 23, 2010)

Withholding treatment = letting nature takes it course. Can be appropriate depending on the circumstances
Euthanasia = murder as you are actively bringing death forward usually by lethal injection. The biggest concern among healthcare workers in the UK is manipulation of the person and family members following their own agenda.

I see more and more elderly or disabled people living alone, separate from their families. If more people were like JimRinX and had supportive families then a lot of the pain and discomfort could be made easier to bear without resorting to euthanasia.

How can parents, no matter how ill, be a burden when they have done so much to bring their children up. I personally have issues with the word burden and it has so much emotional baggage.
Jasleen


----------



## Bmandur (Nov 24, 2010)

Mercy Killing,
 I know a person who is in Comma for last 18years. No family No firends to Visit Just laying in thehospital looking at the Empty walls. Only can opened his eyes when ever a Nurse turn the Sukhmani sahib path on from the Tape recoder. Finaly after 18years & six month he past away. *Tell me what I should vote for yes or NO?*


----------



## Bmandur (Nov 24, 2010)

findingmyway said:


> Withholding treatment = letting nature takes it course. Can be appropriate depending on the circumstances
> Euthanasia = murder as you are actively bringing death forward usually by lethal injection. The biggest concern among healthcare workers in the UK is manipulation of the person and family members following their own agenda.
> 
> I see more and more elderly or disabled people living alone, separate from their families. If more people were like JimRinX and had supportive families then a lot of the pain and discomfort could be made easier to bear without resorting to euthanasia.
> ...


 

If The parents are in Nursing Homes No visiting from family or a Friends Once a year May be on Xmas they just visit to there parents what kind life is this. What we should say to that
Thank you


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 24, 2010)

Bmandur said:


> If The parents are in Nursing Homes No visiting from family or a Friends Once a year May be on Xmas they just visit to there parents what kind life is this. What we should say to that
> Thank you



We should condemn the society that abandons such a person and can do more ourselves by visiting homes and trying to cheer these people up kudihug


----------



## JimRinX (Nov 26, 2010)

A Reply to findingmyway and Bmandur Jios
You are mostly right, in my opinion, about all that you've said findingmyway ji (and Thank You for the Compliment, we did ALL {three sons, one daughter, a cousin or two} gather round my Mother); though, while being their to care helped my Mom a lot - and we did not see this as a burden, like those who you laudably view with contempt because the would not have done so - I still ponder, and can never forget, the way that my Mother suffered; gasping, gagging, choking, trying to swallow food & throwing up - all of it, air, food, puke, struggling to make it through, past a HUGE Tumor on her throat; or deny that I still feel like it would have been OK to end her suffering as soon as it was absolutely clear that her Cancer was truly terminal.
Though her admiration for the way Native Americans, living in a time and place where every mouthful of food meant life-or-death for the youngest people of their tribe, would "Go and sit by a rock and wait for something to eat them", was not applicavble to the circumstances surrounding her Cancer Death; I think that she would have approved of my opinion - or even my decision to give her the relief that only death ever could, and only Death finally did; only a little sooner than it worked out that it did do so in the end, anyway (if my Sister would have agreed to too - but that's a whole other story!).
She was simply to sick to assert her own Authority, or I think she would have ended it herself, to be quite honest; she had no Fear of Death - one of her Son's took care of that, when a white streak appeared in his hair (see my "Introducing Myself" Entry), after he talked to Our Beautiful Lord (Hirm doesn't mind being a Buddhist, or any other Faiths Beautiful Lord too, after all!)!!!
Bmandur ji; as I'm really impressed with Sikhisms Teachings, and I'm - basically - more of a Mahayana Buddhist than an adherernt of any other Faith (Hirm said Hirm likes the Dali Lama), I think that it's WONDERFUL that this 'person in a comma' responded to the tape recorder of the Guru Granth Sahib being played; Mahayana Buddhists come to a dead persons death bed, then chant and play musical instuments to remind the Clear Light part of the semi-deceased (semi, from a Buddhist POV) that the Path after Death has Three Forks: You've attained Nirvana in Life, and will live in Shambala; you and the Clear Ligh Entities who've Judged Yor Deeds have decided that you should Reincarnate in a seperate, new body - a whole new Life; or (and thus the drums and chanting) you and your guides have decided that, in the life that you might or might not chose to abandon, though you've already "left" your body, you've not done all that you can and should do, and so you respond to the drums and chanting and return to your not-quite-so-dead-as-many-Non-Buddhists-might-think body, to continue living the life you've decided should not end yet (sorry if that's a redundant statement).
I guess that *"What Should You Do?"* is to decide how you feel about Compassion - and whether you really believe that there's "something else"; something that comes after living the life that the afflicted person has lived, that makes Death a not scarry, not really real thing; then, if you DO decide that Compassion is Good Reason to Act, and you DO decide that you Rweally believe in some kind of Continuation, then you should ask yourself, "Is living in a comma any kind of Life at all? Wouldn't setting this poor soul free, so that they can take another perhaps healthier body; wouldn't that be Better For Them, than forcing them - entirely through Technology (ie: the type that they'd be Dead without it, so therefore it's not part of the Natural Order) - to go one living such a lifeless life?"
When you've answered those Questions, then you'll know what to do.
Remember; Compassion is ALWAYS Very Good Karma!


----------



## findingmyway (Nov 26, 2010)

JimRinX ji,
I still feel withholding treatment and euthanasia are 2 different things. Stopping the life support of someone in a coma is not euthanasia as you are not actively killing them but no longer maintaining life. This is a very important legal and moral distinction which I think it is important to preserve. Yet many people seem to confuse the 2 things as the same issue. Euthanasia is an active process, not passive.


----------



## JimRinX (Nov 27, 2010)

findingmyway ji

You are, of course, right about that distinction; which should also help Bmandur to make (his/her?) decision about that person in the comma.

I live in Oregon, home to "Dr. Death", and we've had many, many long drawn out arguments about this subject; and, in fact, my Catholic Doctor is all for "Death with Dignity" (he's going to get himself EXCOMMUNICATED for that one - as well as his pro-medicinal cannabis POV's!) as we call it - as that sounds so much nicer than 'murder' or 'euthenasia'. Goodness knows, with the jewish branch of my family having been wiped out in the Holocaust, and my own Chronic Pain/Partial Paralysis (just my right arm, so far) causing Neuropathy - I HATE the word, "Euthenasia"!!!

Still, as a Very Compassionate Person who believes in the 'hereafter' - do you really think it wrong of me to have wanted to see my moms suffering ended a few weeks earlier than it otherwise was?

Death is Death! Does it REALLY matter that she was forced to suffer so much longer than she should have had to?


----------



## Ambarsaria (Jun 5, 2019)

Great talk from a genius.

Stephen Hawking: Asking big questions about the universe      - YouTube

This person would be dead long time ago based on the pro-Euthanasia view.

Sat Sri Akal.


----------



## Admin (Jun 5, 2019)

‘Love is letting go’: Netherlands teen raped as child chooses to end her life
					

Noa Pothoven, 17, has been legally euthanized in the Netherlands, saying the pain she was dealing with after a childhood rape was “insufferable”.




					nypost.com


----------

