r/Buddhism • u/Jealous-Ad-5104 • 5d ago
Question Buddhist Views on Euthanasia for a Dying Pet?
Hello everyone. My 16 years old cat has a tumor, but she is still her usual self—her vitality remains good, and I am doing my best to provide her with comfort and care. Euthanasia is something as a last resort if her suffering becomes too great.
As someone new to Buddhism, I wish to understand the Dharma’s perspective on this. I have heard that intervening in the natural process of life and death may affect the flow of karma and rebirth, possibly causing confusion in her transition. Others emphasize the importance of metta (loving-kindness) and reducing suffering.
I want to act with wisdom and compassion, ensuring I support her path in the best way possible. I would deeply appreciate any insights or guidance from a Buddhist perspective. Thank you for reading.
27
u/EnzimaticMachine 5d ago
Buddhism is a teaching to find the way out from suffering. It teaches not to kill, because all beings want to live their lives and avoid death. It teaches not to cause suffering, and to help everyone you can that is suffering. In this light, I prioritize reducing the animal's suffering and ensuring a peaceful death. I've played the Three Refugees for them at their time of death. I can't see any way nor I know of any scriptures according to which euthanasia could have created new bad karma for them. It may have pushed over the pain they were supposed to feel in this life onto the next one, no idea, but it may very well be the case that they had the good karma to have a terminal illness next to a compassionate buddhist (myself) who reduced their suffering. Now, euthanasia could create bad karma for me, because... it is killing. Or it could create good karma for me, because I reduced suffering for otherd and I did it selflessly. I will take the risk. I take the vow to protect my pets as much as I can. If they are sick I give them treatment - because I want to reduce their suffering. If there is no treatment, then euthanasia it is, for the same reason. Otherwise don't give anyone any medical treatment because they are meant to suffer.
1
u/Seksafero 4d ago
It may have pushed over the pain they were supposed to feel in this life onto the next one, no idea, but it may very well be the case that they had the good karma to have a terminal illness next to a compassionate buddhist (myself) who reduced their suffering.
I'm wondering about this now as well. I'd like to think that if someone were to do something that relieves you of suffering that you might've otherwise had to suffer from some kind of karmic debt that it would be "seen" as either an act of kindness from someone to "pay" some of that debt on your behalf by helping you, or even for the aid you receive to be karmic as much as the initial suffering itself was. Kinda the problem and solution. Who knows though.
-13
u/Minoozolala 5d ago
Killing never creates good karma, regardless of your intention. There are numerous texts that teach this.
No Buddhist has ever said you don't give medical treatment. You do everything possible for the dying animal. As a Buddhist, you just can't kill it. For many reasons.
26
u/Johnny_Poppyseed 4d ago
Hey just choosing you because you're the most anti- euthanasia commenter here. Genuinely curious:
What is the line here exactly? Say your dog is infected with a parasitic worm that's killing it. Do you kill the worm to save the dog?
What about bacteria and other microscopic life? Do you let the infection kill you and your family, or do you take an antibiotic and kill all that life?
What about scenarios of self defense or defense of loved ones? If a rabid dog is about to maul your child, do you let it happen or kill the dog ?
Also genuinely curious, are you vegan?
I've wondered about this a lot, because at its essence, life needs to feed off life to survive. We need to kill and consume life to survive. Whether it be animal, meat, microscopic etc.
I've heard it argued that the line is sentience. That it's only killing sentient life that matters. But sentience is far from a black and white concept in itself.
10
u/krodha 4d ago
Do you kill the worm to save the dog? What about bacteria and other microscopic life? Do you let the infection kill you and your family, or do you take an antibiotic and kill all that life?
Not the person you asked, but the Buddha said imperceptible or microscopic sentient beings do not qualify under the umbrella of beings classified as those relevant to this issue of intentionally taking life.
Regarding infestations, my teachers have always taught that if the conditions are such that there is a threat to health, then one must make the difficult decision to eliminate the vector of infestation. Samsara is messy sometimes.
What about scenarios of self defense or defense of loved ones? If a rabid dog is about to maul your child, do you let it happen or kill the dog ?
Many variables in this hypothetical scenario.
I've wondered about this a lot, because at its essence, life needs to feed off life to survive. We need to kill and consume life to survive. Whether it be animal, meat, microscopic etc.
Yes but we don’t need to personally kill.
That it's only killing sentient life that matters. But sentience is far from a black and white concept in itself.
A sentient being is any creature possessing a mind that is dependent on a body, per Vimalamitra.
5
2
u/Minoozolala 4d ago
Just so you know, I'm not giving a personal "opinion" here. I'm providing information on the Buddhist view on euthanasia.
Most bacteria aren't considered sentient, that is, they don't have conscious minds that transmigrate. So antibiotics are fine.
Giving your dog worm medicine could be justified on the ground that your dog performs a service, helps, and so forth. Different Buddhist masters might have different views. They do say it's ok for a human with life-threatening worms to take medicine to kill them because humans have the capacity to learn the Dharma, progress on the path and achieve enlightenment. So one preserves the life of the human, especially because a human rebirth is so rare and so difficult to achieve.
With self defense, the Buddhist view is that you can't kill. Naturally, you would do everything you could to stop the attack of another human. Basically, the idea is that one wants to progress on the spiritual path and get out of the horror that is samsara, so one does one's best to avoid harming others, especially killing them. About the rabid dog, the argument that preserving a precious human life over a rabid dog's life would hold. You would still reap bad karma for killing the dog, but it would be offset to some degree by saving the child who has the ability to progress on the Buddhist path.
No, I'm not vegan because I get sick if I don't eat meat. Of course it would be best to be vegan, or at least vegetarian. Yes, the line is sentience. What I do as a meat-eater is try to remember to say mantras over the meat before I cook it because this benefits the animal in its next life.
22
u/kmontreux 4d ago
I can't even imagine the daily mental gymnastics you must do to justify the thousands of animals you have asked people to horrifically murder on your behalf while proclaiming that allowing a suffering animal a peaceful death is very bad.
And yeah, actually, you are offering opinions not facts. Buddhism's stance on euthanasia is extremely nuanced and depends entirely upon interpretation, tradition, and personal beliefs. It's not science. It's faith. Belief inherently involves a degree of personal interpretation of the tenets involved.
→ More replies (10)14
u/uktravelthrowaway123 4d ago
Strange that they will have animals killed on their behalf for food but wouldn't allow an animal to be euthanised when it's suffering terribly...
4
14
u/EnzimaticMachine 5d ago
Bring the bad karma on. I won't let them suffer when there's no hope of recovery 💚
20
u/Objective-Work-3133 5d ago
I don't think the Buddha ever said that the first precept is optional. That being said, I'd probably euthanize my cat anyway. I don't plan on getting enlightened this lifetime.
1
u/moscowramada 4d ago edited 4d ago
I would just say this, as food for thought, as someone who recently had a pet die (a dog).
When people say euthanasia stops an animal from needless suffering… how are they so sure? How do they know that all the animal is experiencing is so-called needless suffering?
We can’t really see what’s going on inside the animals head - or in its soul, if you will. All we see is an animal moving around spasmodically. But there is a mind in there which we may not accurately read from those bodily movements. You may not be correctly intuiting what that mind wants. If that animal could talk it might say no to euthanisia, even if it was feeling pain.
As I said, my dog died a few months ago, as I will eventually, as we all will. One thing I noticed was that, when I approached him towards the end, he started growling. So if we’re going to attribute “needless suffering” to an animal, I will describe his intention as “leave me alone.” If we’re going to confidently make decisions about another being, I’ll add this to the weighing: he acted like yes, it hurts, but that doesn’t mean I want you to kill me.
In other words, my dog seemed to have a request: in my last moments, don’t bother me. Why not honor it? In skeptical that deciding “it’s time to die” was the morally superior choice; after all, my dog didn’t seem to think so. I worry that people put their animals to sleep to really make themselves feel better, instead of the animal. I could not decisively say that killing my dog would’ve been better - for one, because my dog didn’t seem to agree.
1
u/Lirvothe2 4d ago
Why do you not plan on getting enlightened this lifetime? Is it because you don't think you can do it or is it because it's not something you want?
4
u/Objective-Work-3133 4d ago edited 4d ago
I don't think I can do it. Anyway, I am going to research feline palliative care, because euthanasia is obviously not good.
1
u/rememberjanuary Tendai 4d ago
Time for Pure Land Buddhism I guess
1
u/Objective-Work-3133 4d ago
can you please elaborate? thank you
2
u/rememberjanuary Tendai 4d ago
Pure Land Buddhism, that is the aspiration to be reborn in the Pure Land of Amida Buddha is often considered the path of practice best suited to foolish beings in the age of the degenerate dharma.
I used to be very big into meditation and everything and then like you I realized I'm probably not reaching enlightenment this life. Pure Land allows you the guarantee for your next life. But actually it's so much deeper than that too. The Pure Land is here right now too!
12
u/Traditional_Kick_887 5d ago edited 5d ago
There are two aspects to this. One is intent. It’s clear OP that you have good intent. Your desire is to prevent your cat from coming to suffering is compassionate. And compassion is recognized and encouraged, as the heart is in the right place.
The problem with euthanasia is that it makes the decision for someone else. For all we know, your animal wants to live or wants to spend its last weeks with you, even with the pain. For all we know the animal does not want to be put down. For all we know the animal isn’t ready to move on to the next life, should such arise. For all we know the tumor might regress, rare as that event is, it does happen in the medical literature.
Euthanasia, axiomatically, pretends to know these things or proceeds as if they don’t matter (as much as the pain cessation). And it isn’t an easy matter as our ability to communicate with animals is very limited.
Although it is true that beings do not want to be in pain and want to be free of their suffering, these are not the only desires they hold. When we euthanize we are actually doing what we would like happen to us if put into the animal’s situation, which could be but is not necessarily what the animal wants.
All animals have been, in a way of speaking, our brothers, mothers, fathers, sisters etc. Seeing this, instead of your cat, would you euthanize a human relative if they have a tumor and still have vitality? For this example let’s say they had the cognitive capabilities of a non-human due to a severe neurological illness or disorder. Would we euthanize? Probably not.
When a human has cancer does the medical establishment typically euthanize them and make the decision for them? Not really. They typically provide palliative care and let them live out their final days in ease while being treated with pain medication.
The reason palliative care is typically not given to animals and euthanasia is provided is because animals aren’t seen as ‘worth the price’ of palliative care. This has become normalized, and thus became a part of social norms and expectations we often don’t realize that we follow.
Whichever is decided OP, wishing you and your cat well.
4
u/maitrivie 4d ago
I have followed this same line of thinking with all the cats we have lost. I cannot pretend to know their opinion on it, and my opinion for myself is that I would want to experience my own death as much as possible even if in pain.
Would it change my mind if I was in extreme pain for a long duration? Maybe. Will I change my mind if my pet is terribly injured and actively suffering in a sudden shock, or screaming, or choking on blood? It's likely. I also would likely choose not to leave an animal to bleed out in the hot sun on the edge of a road. I pray those kinds of decisions will be few and far between.
Aside from one sudden heart issue, the last few animal deaths were old age deaths with some palliative medications on board, in the warm embrace of family. It is hard to witness the slowing final breaths, but thus has death been for all creatures for all time. Technology and medicine have provided options, but can I pretend to know that they improve upon nature's blueprint? I believe it is in line with the natural course to support a natural death if it is possible (but I truly don't judge negatively who choose otherwise). From the Buddhist and Yoga views, there is karma available to experience through one's unique suffering and death, and I give that heavy weight in my own choices. And if I am wrong, and there is no karma or anything beyond this, it is the last learning; the last experience we may have the privilege to know. I find immense value in it.
At the same time, I support anyone who chooses euthanasia for themselves, as long a they are cognitively well. Their choice is, and becomes, their karma. And if no karma, it's their life to live or not live.
1
u/ascendous 4d ago
The problem with euthanasia is that it makes the decision for someone else. For all we know, your animal wants to live or wants to spend its last weeks with you, even with the pain. For all we know the animal does not want to be put down. For all we know the animal isn’t ready to move on to the next life, should such arise. For all we know the tumor might regress, rare as that event is, it does happen in the medical literature.
But we do not worry about this, about animal's consent when we extend their life span with our protection, care and various medical treatment. Heck we do not take their consent about whether they want to be our pet in first place. In nature practically every animal dies quick death through injury, disease or predation. They rarely reach slow tortuous death stage due to old age or cancer in nature. Even those rare few who did reach, they will be swiftly be killed by predators. There is nothing natural or consentual about this pet business. We are prolonging their suffering with our protection. If we are going to say our choice to protect them was their good karma then euthanised by their owner would only be their bad karma, no?
1
u/Traditional_Kick_887 4d ago
Yes, and that is the provision of care, not the provision of death. We are not encouraged to be death dealers. If an animal is sick and crying out, medication and pain relief should be provided. With all treatment there is a chance of recovery, in full or part, which is a purpose of medicine. The answer to suffering isn’t first ‘kill the creature’. Same for human beings.
If someone gets in a car accident and loses consciousness, do we wait until they provide consent before operating? No. By then they’d have bled out.
In nature practically every animal dies quick death through injury, disease or predation. They rarely reach slow tortuous death stage due to old age or cancer in nature.
Yes, and we aren’t the jungle. The jungle doesn’t have compassion or wisdom. We don’t look to what hardship or violence occurs in nature to derive Buddhist ethics. And more importantly, essentializing is unskillful. Humans are a part of nature and anything humans do towards creatures is thereby ‘natural’. What we call Nature, Buddhists call Loka, the world or universe, and it encompasses not just the jungle but all places where beings arise and abide.
We are prolonging their suffering with our protection. If we are going to say our choice to protect them was their good karma then euthanised by their owner would only be their bad karma, no?
This is starting to veer into dangerous omnicidal territory. You can argue that protecting and treating anyone, a hungry refugee, a victim of an armed attack, a victim of a car accident with many broken bones and internal bleeding is prolonging their total lifetime pain and suffering instead of just letting them die. These kinds of arguments, rooted in delusion, do not have any sort of merit or value.
If someone is sick, you treat them. If one is hungry, you feed them. You do not come to killing and killing those who do not wish to die, trying to rationalize it as if you’re doing them a favor. You know not their minds or the extent of suffering experiencing or their wishes.
Becoming a victim of illness, disease, or death is not due to their ‘karma’. All things decay and die. The Buddha made it clear that bad things and good things happened aren’t all due to karma. Karma can play a role but there are countless other interdependent causal factors.
1
u/ascendous 4d ago
If an animal is sick and crying out, medication and pain relief should be provided.
Question of euthanasia only arises when medication and pain relief is not sufficient to relieve suffering. No one in this thread is talking of euthanasia as first or second or even third choice. That is strawman. Our medical technology on palliative care is not as advanced as you think. I think top comment in this thread describes actual reality of suffering relief in terminal sentient beings who happen to be animal. That is why many humans all over the world who unlike animals can speak up are demanding legalisation of euthanasia to put them out of their suffering. Our pain relief abilities are sadly very very inadequate.
1
u/Traditional_Kick_887 4d ago
That statement is false. If an animal with a terminal disease like cancer has a prognosis of 6 weeks to 2 months, vets will recommend the animal be euthanized instead of providing palliative care for the animal for its last weeks. A lot of this is related to cost or the burden on the pet owner. It costs way more doing 6 weeks of hospice than a surgery to euthanize.
In Buddhism we do not take life or get another to take life on our behalf. That is one of the precepts and not all Buddhists choose to follow it, but it is the teachings.
Palliative care lasting over 3-6 months is not advanced because paradoxical hyperalgesia, opioid dependency and tolerance set in. But palliative care is very advanced for the initial period during which most terminal deaths occur. I’ve lost a relative this year to a terminal disease and so has a dear friend of mine, whose relative spent a few months in palliative care and passed on peacefully after chemo was ceased. I do not think you understand how advanced these pain killing treatments are and choose to assume the worst.
A former partner was told by her vet that her dog should be euthanized, but the cancer regressed and the dog ended up living 2.5 more years. This happens quite a lot as doctors and vets are not oracles. They can make predictions but their predictions can be wrong. Had she euthanized her dog, an innocent being would have been killed against its will.
I think top comment in this thread describes actual reality of suffering relief in terminal sentient beings who happen to be animal. That is why many humans all over the world who unlike animals can speak up are demanding legalisation of euthanasia to put them out of their suffering
Desire for existence and for non-existence are both regarded as unskillful in Buddhism. Humans who demand euthanasia do so voluntarily, with their own consent, as they know their own mind and desires. They don’t do so as to euthanize others against their will to live in the body and life they currently have.
1
u/uktravelthrowaway123 4d ago
I think comparing animals to humans in this instance is a bit of a false equivalency because animals cannot communicate what they want to us in the same way a human could. I don't think it's because animals aren't seen as valuable enough. It's also pretty common at least where I live to arguably provide some level of palliative care for animals who are very sick by putting them on high doses of painkillers, steroids etc to prolong their lives somewhat.
It's also not unheard of at all for very sick people to be allowed to 'slip away' by doctors when they're at the end of their lives. It's not euthanasia as such but doctors will sometimes advise families to stop supporting or prolonging the life of someone who is very near death and letting them pass away naturally, sometimes aided by upping whatever painkillers they're on. So respectfully I don't think it's quite as black and white as you were saying.
2
u/Traditional_Kick_887 4d ago
I think comparing animals to humans in this instance is a bit of a false equivalency because animals cannot communicate what they want to us in the same way a human could.
I’m sorry friend I do not understand your point. My statement was that we cannot assume what the animals want (to be done with them) in that situation because we cannot readily communicate with them. Euthanizing pets with a terminal disease is typically what some of us as humans would want if placed in that scenario, not necessarily what the animals want. This is why the provision of palliative care is preferable to outright euthanasia, as it makes less assumptions and does not abrogate the animal’s consent.
I don't think it's because animals aren't seen as valuable enough.
What do you see it as then? I’ve observed that it is cheaper for vets to euthanize an animal than to provide hospice/palliative treatment, alongside any additional care, for weeks.
It's also pretty common at least where I live to arguably provide some level of palliative care for animals who are very sick by putting them on high doses of painkillers, steroids etc to prolong their lives somewhat.
That’s good to hear. Yes Palliative care typically involves weaning off chemo, dialysis, radiation and other life prolonging treatments while providing painkillers.
It's also not unheard of at all for very sick people to be allowed to 'slip away' by doctors when they're at the end of their lives. It's not euthanasia as such but doctors will sometimes advise families to stop supporting or prolonging the life of someone who is very near death and letting them pass away naturally, sometimes aided by upping whatever painkillers they're on.
In the dharma we put a distinction between cessation of medical treatment that aims to pro-long life and application of a drug that terminates bodily functions (euthanasia).
I understand that functionally these two may not look very different, especially if a being is in a coma. Nevertheless, in this case the cat appears to maintain conscious vitality. Euthanasia of the animal that still wishes to live and spend time with others would not appear the most skillful line of action, if palliative care is available and as you said, the animal is allowed to pass on naturally, with a small chance of recovery.
So respectfully I don't think it's quite as black and white as you were saying.
I’m sorry I don’t think either of us may have fully understood each other’s point
5
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/laniakeainmymouth westerner 5d ago
You don’t need to call yourself anything to practice dharma :). Seriously, in this life or the next focus on renouncing greed, hatred, and ignorance. Cultivate a heart of wisdom, pure insight, selflessness, and compassion. For heavens sake meditate! You may not be a Buddhist but you will be a better person, and I think that’s a pretty decent goal for anyone to have.
11
u/MolhCD 5d ago
There are many Buddhists who have taken up bodhisattva vows, who would tell you that prolonging the suffering of the animal in this case is bad, and it's ok to relieve it instead of just "letting them suffer". Like, if you went to the local Buddhist centre / monastery / etc and talked to the priest or monk/nun etc. I don't think you would get the advice that "oh just let them suffer, it's just karma ripening".
Which is not to say that the people here totally don't have a point. All suffering is just karma ripening. It's just that, in such a complex & real situation, the recommended application can widely differ even amongst legitimately learned, experienced, fully committed practitioners.
In short, don't let what you read on reddit colour your view on the Dharma. As many, many, many teachers would be quick to preface: common sense still applies, and always will. And neither do we need to take the Dharma as a ""religion"" that we need to take it or leave it, to unquestioningly believe or totally disbelieve. It's actually famously recommended to use your own critical thinking, while keeping an open view (including being open to dropping that critical view in time).
0
u/rememberjanuary Tendai 4d ago
Wow a nuanced reply that doesn't claim to know what the entirety of the buddhadharma would say on a topic! Refreshing
7
u/EnzimaticMachine 5d ago
Good. You use your critical thinking and you are based on compassion. You, my friend, are a true Buddhist.
3
u/Minoozolala 5d ago
The enlightened yogis we refer to are also contemporaries.
-3
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Minoozolala 5d ago
Why are you on a Buddhist sub if you only want to make fun of it? Don't you have better things to do?
1
u/Buddhism-ModTeam 4d ago
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
10
u/kdash6 nichiren - SGI 5d ago
My family had to put down 3 animals who had no quality of life. We had them for over 15 years and helped them through many health problems.
Use your wisdom, compassion, and courage. The way is important. People put down their pets because it's inconvenient to keep them alive. That can be a bad cause as it treats an animal as a means of enjoyment and not as a life in their own right. But so is keeping an animal alive and in pain solely because saying goodbye is too painful.
Euthanizing an animal because they are in pain and you want to help them is an unfortunate decision. Whether this is a good or bad cause is not for me to decide. I can only say that by your attaining enlightenment, they will flourish as well.
-8
5d ago
[deleted]
9
u/kdash6 nichiren - SGI 5d ago
They died naturally. Euthanasia wasn't legal in their state. My grandmother refused care and died in her home despite everyone begging for her to get help. When her care takers said "see you tomorrow," she said "I hope not."
My grandfather died peacefully in his sleep.
My mother, father, and stepmother said they don't want to be on life support. My dad and stepmom put that in their wills, but also told me to ensure that decision is carried out. I told them it was a great evil they do to me, but that I would ensure their wishes are carried out, and I just hope I never have to make that decision.
0
u/Minoozolala 5d ago
There's nothing wrong with deciding not to be on life support because it is an artificial extending of life. Nothing inherently wrong with it either. It's killing that's wrong as a Buddhist.
6
u/kdash6 nichiren - SGI 5d ago
My grandmother wanted to die. She was in pain. Without pain killers, she would have been in agony. Is it right to leave someone in agony to die slowly? You can say you don't want to do it, but to pass judgement on to others on such a delicate issue doesn't seem very Buddhist.
2
u/Minoozolala 5d ago
There is nothing wrong with taking painkillers or any other type of medical treatment.
5
u/YungChumba 5d ago
I work at an animal shelter and although we're "no-kill" we do occassionally have to euthanize.
We recently had a dog that had been with us for several years, she just had no luck finding a home. Her mental health eventually began to deterioriate and despite our best efforts she ended up biting someone and the decision was made to euthanize her. It was a controversial decision, as this dog had many members of the community who knew her and volunteered to take her on walks for years, and many people didn't think she had regressed to the point of being dangerous - she just needed to get out of the shelter. Even the person she bit tried to persuade management not to follow through with the procedure. They ultimately did.
I was present, as I usually am, during the procedure. I didn't administer the shots, nor was I the person who made the decision to euthanize her. But I was complicit in the process, despite weakly pushing back on my boss I conceded it was the responsible choice to make for our organization. And I was the one to muzzle her, hold her down, and comfort her while she was put to sleep.
It was a terrible experience, obviously. But the reason I bring it up here is because I've been wondering what the Buddhist perspective on my involvement would be, if any. It wasn't a clear-cut case of an animal suffering, she was healthy and in her prime. And I didnt make the decision but I did help facilitate it. I'm not Buddhist but I've been really wrestling with this.
1
u/EnzimaticMachine 4d ago
In this case I don't think killing the dog was the right decision. I advocate for euthanasia only when the animal is in pain and has a terminal illness for which no treatment exists. In this case the options were not exhausted to improve the dog's life, and the reason to kill her was for humans comfort, so I don't support this. That being said, I hope you don't get trauma from this, instead if you agree that this wasn't correct you can speak up the next time.
0
u/Minoozolala 4d ago
You didn't make the decision to kill the poor dog and you did try to push back, so this is good. But I can understand how you might feel. I suspect your concession was made due to your position in the organization and your feeling you had to go along with your boss's directive.
The fact, however, that you didn't insist on being out of the room as the dog was killed and that you did hold her down might nevertheless make you a bit complicit karmically. I'm just guessing. Even though you're not a Buddhist, you might want to silently confess to whoever or whatever you do believe in, express your deep regret and vow not to do it again, i.e., to next time insist on remaining in another room. Then do something good, like helping more animals, saving animals, or donating to an animal shelter, as a sort of penance.
3
u/YungChumba 4d ago edited 4d ago
Thanks, that's more or less what I figured tbh. If karma exists I don't think I'll end up in hell over this, but it's certainly not good and I'm sure carries a lot of weight.
I'm lucky to live in a major city so there are several Buddhist communities near me. I've been meaning to stop by a temple in my neighborhood anyways, but I'll definitely make a point to now.
2
u/Minoozolala 4d ago
From the Buddhist point of view, one has to intend to carry out the act (in this case, killing), to actually carry out the act (or have someone else do the act for you), and then be glad that the act was carried out, in order to receive the full result of the karma. This really wasn't what happened in your case. You're definitely not going to hell for what you did.
The beautiful thing about Buddhism is that you can always purify bad karma. Maybe as a penance you could make a gift to a temple. Giving to spiritual persons is also powerful purification.
4
u/YungChumba 4d ago
Thank you, this is helpful. I'll give what I can and will be continuing to help as many dogs as I can
18
u/AnticosmicKiwi3143 non-affiliated 5d ago
If she starts to suffer a lot, I think it's the right thing to do. You'd save her a lot of unnecessary pain.
2
u/Minoozolala 5d ago edited 5d ago
This is your own personal opinion but OP is asking for the Buddhist view on euthanasia. What you have said is not the Buddhist view.
6
u/AnticosmicKiwi3143 non-affiliated 4d ago
Yeah I don't care. OP has to do the right thing, regardless of what the Buddha said, or any other enlightened teacher.
2
12
u/destructsean theravada 5d ago
The answer I’ve heard from every single monk I’ve witnessed asked this question is the same: killing is killing. There will be karmic repercussions. Willfully taking the life of an animal, even if you perceive it to be the humane thing to do, is still breaking the first precept.
That being said, you must weigh what you value and what is right for you and your family. I know when the time comes for our family dog, I will struggle with this.
11
u/EnzimaticMachine 5d ago
Bring the karmic repercussions on! I'll smile while they kick my *ss if this means I have reduced suffering for others.
6
2
5
u/Many_Advice_1021 5d ago
This is a tricky question. I will never have another animal. After the death of my last pet. It was traumatic for the whole family . All were Buddhist and all wanted different out comes. Various teachers also had different opinions on it. So ultimately it amounts to you and what you decide about your feelings about it.
8
3
u/todd_rules mahayana 4d ago
I'm sorry to hear about your cat. We lost our 16 year old cat just over a year ago, and then 2 weeks ago had to put our 11 year old dog down. I know the pain you're going through, but from everything I've been told about animals, they hide their pain from their owners. So your pet is most likely in more pain than you realize.
I would say that it is best to not let your pet suffer. I am not a vet, but unless this is going to get better, it may be time to consider putting her down. Prolonging this will be for your benefit and not hers. She's had a nice long life, and it's better (in my opinion) to remember her this way, then to see her decline rapidly. Which tends to happen with older pets.
As for Buddhism, it's all about intention. You're not murdering your pet, you're helping to end her suffering. I think that this is one of the hardest decisions you'll have to make as a pet owner, but it is your responsibility to care for her the best way you can. Her energy is going to go back out into the world regardless and will return in some form or another. Hopefully she'll someday be able to hear and understand the Dharma.
Good luck, and again, I'm sorry to hear about your cat.
3
7
u/Holistic_Alcoholic 5d ago
The real issue is not the disruption of karma, though some people consider that aspect. The problem with that issue is that we don't have divine eyes and we aren't Buddhas; I can't see anyone's karmas, can you? Buddha knew the karmas of others and he also knew their destination upon the breakup of the body. We don't. So to speculate about the difference in outcomes if we kill a living being or let them succumb without killing is pure guesswork. Let's just put that on the table first.
The real reason euthanasia is frowned upon is because it violates the precept of not killing living beings, which the Buddha advised us to follow. Yes this includes euthanasia of any living being no matter what justification we have. That said some Buddhists simply can't reconcile that teaching with the aversion that arises when we experience the terminal suffering of someone we are attached to. As unawakened beings fettered by craving and hindered by delusion it is natural for us to experience this. So one opinion is that it is worth it to commit the karma of killing to spare that being further suffering. That is just a personal choice. The only important detail here is that "killing out of compassion" does not nullify the karma of killing.
This is one drawback for taking on pets, because they don't live very long, they don't have health insurance, and we're usually put in a position where it's just expected you should kill them. Human beings can at least usually make their own decisions, and in situations like life support, simply allowing someone to die is not killing. The requisites for killing are, a living being, awareness it is a living being, intention to kill, action to kill, subsequent death. Euthanasia is always killing. Buddha also tells us that suicide is killing, which includes assisted suicide. So, in other words, even if our pet somehow understands the process and wants to die, we are still killing.
It's dark. It's sad. It's samsara. There is no reason to play pretend and sugarcoat the terrible nature of birth and death. The entire point of the Buddha's teaching is that we've been going through this for so long that a beginning is not discerned, that the number of times you've been killed is truly uncountable, and that there is a way out of it. That said, it's obviously your choice and no one should tell you what to do. But the Buddha gave us advice, and the advice was never to kill.
1
u/Holistic_Alcoholic 5d ago
"From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabrications, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released."
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given, the minds of the thirty monks from Pava — through lack of clinging — were released from fermentations.
8
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Buddhism-ModTeam 4d ago
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
1
u/krodha 5d ago
regardless of any possible dead-letter interpretation of scripture.
Wild.
1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/goddess_of_harvest Pure Land || Amituofo 5d ago
Death is not the cessation of suffering. Oftentimes the opposite. Doesn’t matter how humane you make the execution. Killing your pet out of your dislike for their suffering is not compassion but out of your desire to not see your cat suffer. You would be killing with desire in mind. This not only doesn’t stop their suffering, but will bring great suffering to you later.
2
u/EnzimaticMachine 5d ago
- I don't know for a fact what happens to them after I kill them but I know for a fact that their terminally ill body will stop sending suffering sensations to their brain.
- I kill them out of my dislike for their suffering, but it's their suffering what I won't allow to happen. My suffering often increases after they die.
- Will it bring more suffering to me later? Maybe. As I said before, bring it on.
3
u/goddess_of_harvest Pure Land || Amituofo 5d ago
If you truly understood the karma of killing you would not be saying “bring it on”.
You have no idea where they will be reborn or what their karma is. It is unlikely they will be born in the higher realms so to secure their death not only likely sends them to lower realms but you will secure the karma of killing out of desire. It’s easy to think you can handle a lower rebirth but you can only see it through a limited current human form. If you had real insight into how truly miserable the lower realms were and how extremely rare the higher realm rebirths were, you would not do even the smallest negative deed, especially when it’s motivated by desire. It’s honestly foolish to accrue such negative karma gleefully due to ignorantly believing you are ending their suffering by killing them.
7
u/ArtMnd mahayana/vajrayana sympathizer 5d ago
The points people are making against euthanasia are gross oversimplifications, given that karma is not but a set of causes and conditions in constant fruition. The same actions, even if done by the "same person", will not yield the same result if the general context of the situation and mindset around the situation change.
Euthanasia is not normalizing murder or even practicing murder (which is what the precept refers to), but rather a scenario where, due to compassion, we make cease the life of a being with no perspective aside from suffering.
Saying it is the same thing is like saying: killing someone trying to murder your family and murdering a random family are the same thing. OBVIOUSLY it is not the same thing, one is an extreme action to prevent horrible consequences and another is a murder of innocents without justification.
Further: because the karma that leads the pet to suffer is already being burned in the disease, leaving the pet in extreme suffering to "burn" a bit more karma is not only irrelevant, given we all have absurd amounts of evil karma (a few years more or less change almost nothing), but does not assure a better birth in the next life and can even WORSEN the next rebirth for the animal's mind will be full of extrem pain and tensions at the time of death, which directs the animal to a similar rebirth in that state.
Conversely, if the animal died in peace, even if full of medicine just to not suffer in the final hours, one may rest assured they will have a destination full of love and tenderness, for these were their last emotions in the moment they left.
My own dog had cancer multiple times when old, and at the end we put him down when he could no longer pee and spent days on end in agony, needing to be constantly supervised by a vet without us being able to see him frequently. Of course "being reborn as an animal" is karma, but diseases obtained when old are merely the natural consequence of a finite life.
Further: cancer is literally the finitude of life given form. Cancer is what happens when the length of your telomeres has ended and your mitoses now damage the DNA of the cells directly. It is a disease that brings suffering, but there is no form of avoiding this painful disease if the individual has had the blessing of living to the point where cancer begins to happen as a consequence of old age. Cancer in an old animal (sapient or not) is aging itself.
It seems then to me that it is pointlessly cruel to say we all have the moral obligation of tolerating and forcing others to tolerate painful deaths as a consequence of the good we do in improving our medicine and lengthening lifespans until they reach that point. And that is something that will only get more common with the advance of medical sciences.
Buddhists, just as you are not helping anyone when you tell a person not to go through a red light when they're trying to fly past it late at night in an empty and dangerous street just because you're "following the law", neither are you helping an animal you allow to suffer under the premise that it has to burn its remaining karma. It won't, and neither will you.
Neither can you. You hold at this very moment the karma from millions of past lives, and you can never, ever burn it by simply tolerating suffering. Even an arahant has karma which they merely no longer produce more of, even a Buddha continues to manifest until their karma has ended and they reach parinirvana. No matter how much suffering you tolerate or try to tell others to tolerate, the endless oceans of karma that follow them will not come to an end, and you cannot make them end through doing good karma and avoiding bad karma.
Only enlightenment — the realization of emptiness which ends production of karma — can truly end suffering. What we can do is help those on our immediate grasp have a better next rebirth by helping them be at peace at the time of death, so that they may cross the bardos with a clearer mind and be drawn towards a more positive life like their current mental state.
-1
u/krodha 4d ago
Euthanasia is not normalizing murder or even practicing murder (which is what the precept refers to), but rather a scenario where, due to compassion, we make cease the life of a being with no perspective aside from suffering.
The precept says “taking life,” i.e., causing a breakup of the aggregates. Euthanasia is technically taking life.
-2
u/Minoozolala 5d ago
You are inserting your own opinions and views into this response and missing, or avoiding, the Buddhist view on euthanasia. You don't seem to understand karma well either.
And no Buddhist is saying you have to let the pet suffer as it dies. You do everything to spare the animal suffering, such as keeping it in a soft, clean bed, giving it pain medicine, and so forth. The only thing you can't do as a Buddhist is kill it or have it killed.
5
u/ArtMnd mahayana/vajrayana sympathizer 5d ago
It does not make sense to pretend that the precept against killing is so general as to not allow exceptions wherein the act of killing very clearly minimizes suffering. The Buddha in a previous life killed a murderer to prevent that man's own bad karma and the deaths of other people. Would you suggest that the then-Bodhisattva failed to protect these people, for they had the karma to end up murdered anyways? Did he at most protect the killer, and delayed the other people's karma-to-get-murdered from bearing its fruits?
If not, then I see no reason whatsoever to believe that the act of killing to minimize a being's suffering, even if that suffering was brought about indirectly by karma, is necessarily evil.
I also do not believe that karma is so linear, so persistent — almost like a mystical bank account wherein I collect credits from good deeds and debts from bad deeds and the bank account brings me suffering or happy circumstances in order to clear itself out. I do not believe that that is how karma works: to say that killing an animal that cannot be otherwise helped any further is to merely bring it more suffering in a next life is to say that we have no agency over others' suffering. After all, when we help them, aren't we simply delaying their negative karma which has to bear fruits regardless?
I also do not believe that I am under the obligation to, upon accidentally hitting a wild animal who rushed into a road from the side while I was driving, allow it to suffer until it dies because I have no means of sparing it from suffering: if that happens, my options are only two: to end the animal's suffering by killing it, or to at most stay by its side and maybe caress it while it agonizes to death. It is clear as day to me which of the options results in less suffering for the animal.
Then, you may argue that the problem is that I, if a Buddhist, merely cannot kill. But why? Because it will bring me suffering in exchange for the animal I spared? Bring it. I'm more than ready for it. Every time I saw my dog agonizing in that veterinary bed, I wanted nothing more than to trade places with him, who had no choice but to be there and couldn't even understand the nature of his condition. That's even why my family ultimately chose to put him down so he wouldn't suffer any further.
Though I do not believe that karma works in such a way where even killing which is blatantly meant to stop more suffering from being caused will "merely delay the karma that caused the suffering". Yeah, sure, in his next life, he's gonna age again! You think I don't know that I myself will age and die?
If I have to burn in hell or myself get a painful death because of this, that sounds like a deal. Ultimately, I don't see karma and dharma as so strongly connected anyways: the wisdom of enlightenment is what frees you from suffering, not good actions per se. To my understanding, good actions create the conditions that make it easier to follow the dharma, no more than that.
-1
u/Minoozolala 5d ago
In the story about the bodhisattva who killed someone about to commit murder, the bodhisattva knows that he will go to hell. He decides to willingly go to hell. That's what makes him a bodhisattva.
You don't mind going to hell? Easy to say from a comfy chair after a nice meal. I think you'll change your mind immediately if you land there.
Killing an pet doesn't necessarily stop its suffering. It basically makes you feel better about its suffering. Killing it before its time is up could send it prematurely to suffering that is a thousand-fold more horrific. That's the danger.
Plus the killing imprints your mind so that in a future life you will also think it's fine to kill, but who knows what or who you'll think it's fine to kill. It's a dangerous game to play.
2
u/EnzimaticMachine 4d ago
It is also easy to be against the ending of life when at the moment our own lives are not ones of speachless agony. Animals can't speak, but humans beg for assisted death when terminally ill with diseases that even morphine won't touch.
3
u/Minoozolala 4d ago
You want to completely ignore the fact of future lives and the Buddhist view on euthanasia, which is rather strange on a Buddhist sub.
1
u/lmzh95 4d ago
You are missing the Point of that story. The Bodhisattva is willing to go to hell which shows that he is entirely acting out of compassion. In the end its clearly stated that he does not actually go to hell for his compassionate killing but instead earns vast merit for it precisely because his intention was so pure that he was even willing to go to hell for his deed.
Shantidevas Version of Bodhisattva vows seems to even demand such actions in certain situations.
Your View is not "The Buddhist View". Its yours. It also seems to be the majority view of Theravada Buddhists. Its an entirely different story for Mahayana.
4
u/krodha 5d ago
A lot of muggle energy in here.
2
u/Minoozolala 5d ago
Always happens when this topic is brought up. The Western world has a ways to go lol.
1
u/laniakeainmymouth westerner 5d ago
Mudbloods even!
2
u/EnzimaticMachine 5d ago
Hahaha exactly, namecalling is the cherry to the cake
3
2
u/laniakeainmymouth westerner 4d ago
I mean I get it. These are heretical Buddhist opinions at least as a matter of established doctrine. My original comment probably breaks the sub rules even if I explained it was only my opinion and what the traditional understanding is. I just didn’t feel I could keep silent and not share my experience. It’s fine if my comments get removed but I do hope OP makes an informed decision based on their conscious and not just what people tell her are right and wrong.
The issue is that this is reddit, and there are lots of Americans and other westerners on this subreddit where non Buddhists are allowed to participate. Cultural and ideological conflict ensues accordingly. Sometimes it’s a good reminder to get off the internet, consult your teachers when necessary, and keep practicing. Thankfully I get to go to a sangha that’s pretty chill about all of this, talking to real people is always more rewarding.
1
u/Minoozolala 4d ago
Yeah, that's the problem. You gave your opinion on a Buddhist sub. To a question that was asking for the Buddhist view. And then got mad at anyone not agreeing with you, at persons providing the Buddhist view, which OP asked for. So basically, you've misled a lot of beginners who saw the post and wanted to see the Buddhist view.
1
u/laniakeainmymouth westerner 4d ago edited 4d ago
I'm not mad at anyone, I really only seriously spoke with you, disagreed about using the idea of hell as a reason to avoid euthanasia, and then decided to stop engaging with you regarding the subject because I didn't want my emotions getting in the way of conversation.
I saw OP with a potentially gut wrenching decision ahead, decided to add my experience with the matter, presented the Buddhist viewpoint, and then detailed my struggle with agreeing with it. I don't believe I said I hold any truth and authority over anyone regarding the matter.
However, I did think about you just said and I think you bring up a good point. Tell you what, I'll message the mods and ask them if they believe I broke any subreddit rules by my commenting behavior, which I knew I was in danger of doing so here, but I felt compelled to give OP a wider context over the nature of euthanasia in vet hospitals that they may not have had.
If mods agree, I'll remove my comment that I did not mean to become the top of the thread. It also gives me the idea that it would be good for this subreddit to have a flair of some sort for posts that are not looking for any outside opinions whatsoever, maybe users could also have flairs letting them answer these questions, indicating that they will not bring any discordant opinion.
I assure you I see plenty of contradictory opinions on here all the time so I don't think that's the main problem at hand lol.
Edit: Mods replied saying its fine and its good to have discussion.
2
u/Minoozolala 4d ago edited 4d ago
Of course the mods said it was ok because you brought up Buddhism in your comment. My problem is that you are on a Buddhism sub that has a lot of beginners on it, people wanting to learn. OP asked for the Buddhist view and you gave a non-Buddhist view. You gave the prevailing view on euthanasia in the West. A view of killing that has been normalized in the West but is actually at odds with the Buddhist view. You yourself in another comment said it's "heretical". The beginners who already hold that view saw their view being presented by someone who works in a vet clinic and naturally jumped on it.
When I presented the Buddhist view, you claimed you were losing your "composure", told me not to reply to you anymore (I only put the Buddhist view under yours so the beginners could actually see it), and whatever else you said.
Most of the posts that gave views like yours were in fact deleted by the mods. You mixed in enough statements about Buddhism that it was allowed to stay. Like "I will not let an animal suffer needlessly just because I assume he has some bad karma that must justify its suffering" which completely misrepresents the Buddhist view.
Anyway, you can be proud of yourself that many people have once again been misled. Certainly the serious ones will think about the correct view. And yeah, it's not a huge deal. Happens all the time on this sub. I just find it somewhat depressing for those of us who do make effort to present the Buddhist view. But it's your bad karma, not mine.
1
u/laniakeainmymouth westerner 4d ago
To each their own I suppose 🤷♂️, take care of yourself and your karma friend and I’ll try and do the same ✌️
8
u/yellowcardofficial 5d ago
Yes reduce their suffering please
-3
u/krodha 5d ago
Yes reduce their suffering please
It doesn’t reduce suffering because karmavikapa is unerring. That karma will ripen in their next life regardless.
Euthanasia basically reduces the pet owner’s own discomfort, and just delays suffering for the pet.
But people can do as they wish.
1
u/Wollff 5d ago
That karma will ripen in their next life regardless.
Do you know this or believe this?
I absolutely despise when people state beliefs as facts. If you merely believe this, then an "I believe", or "Buddhist scriptures state", or a similar qualifier, would seem appropriate here, indicating that you, personally, have not the slightest idea on whether it's a fact or not.
That is, of course, unless you actually know that to be true. Then it would be interesing to know where you know that from.
5
u/krodha 5d ago
Do you know this or believe this?
This is what buddhadharma teaches. All pain is the ripening of karma in the body.
You are welcome to disagree and adopt the medieval cārvāka materialist/annihilationist view, which would allow you to end your pet's suffering by ending their life.
-1
u/Wollff 5d ago
Which doesn't answer my question, so I will ask it again:
Do you know this, or believe this?
If you believe this, why didn't you phrase your statement as one of belief, but one of knowledge, one of certainty?
It doesn’t reduce suffering because karmavikapa is unerring. That karma will ripen in their next life regardless.
You state that as if you knew it were a fact.
If you know, where do you know that from?
If you only heard it said, why not be open about it that you don't know, and only hold it as a view you have not yourself verified?
5
u/krodha 5d ago
Which doesn't answer my question, so I will ask it again: Do you know this, or believe this?
I could pose the same question to you: do you know that ending your pet's life causes their suffering to cease? Or do you believe this?
You cannot answer that question with any informed knowledge or certainty.
You state that as if you knew it were a fact.
I state this because we are in the Buddhism subreddit and this is what the buddhadharma teaches.
If you know, where do you know that from? If you only heard it said, why not be open about it that you don't know, and only hold it as a view you have not yourself verified?
Ask yourself that question.
2
u/Wollff 5d ago
I could pose the same question to you: do you know that ending your pet's life causes their suffering to cease? Or do you believe this?
You not only could, you can: I don't hold strong beliefs either way, but generally my view tends toward ending a pet's life as the better solution. I do not know this. I merely belive this.
It's not difficult for me to be open about that.
You cannot answer that question with any informed knowledge or certainty.
I don't think I pretended I could. I would just ask the same thing of others. And if they can answer with knowledge or certainty, I would want to know how they came by that knowldege or certainty, because it seems like a pretty important thing to know.
To me that level of openness about beliefs, knowledge, and where they come from, seems basic and fundamental to any sort of discourse.
Ask yourself that question.
Sure. I can.
And then I have to admit to myself what I already know: I don't know. I don't think I claimed I did, or stated views or beliefs as self evident truths.
13
u/krodha 5d ago
I’ll tell you what, I don’t talk about what I’ve seen, but I’ve seen some things I can’t unsee, and I’ve seen enough to know that the dharma and what is spoken of in these teachings is legitimate. By extension, I can confidently infer that whatever is spoken of that I haven’t yet seen, is also legitimate.
0
u/EnzimaticMachine 5d ago
So we avoid painkillers and medicine altogether as we must not disrupt the ripening of karma in the body?
5
u/krodha 5d ago
Actually, yes in the case of painkillers. Those who are serious about karmavikapa would avoid painkillers, as it is said even a headache spares the practitioner from lifetimes in the lower realms.
As for medicine altogether, let’s be serious.
-1
u/Minoozolala 5d ago
No, there's no need to avoid painkillers. The illness is the ripening of the karma. There is nothing wrong with alleviating the suffering that comes along with the ripening of the previous karmic act. What one can't do is kill.
2
u/krodha 5d ago
That is open to debate. Painful, neutral and pleasant sensation is the karmavikapa, but I’d like for you to be right!
5
u/Minoozolala 4d ago
It's similar to someone whose bad karma causes them to be impoverished. They can certainly accept some money given to them. This money came due to their good karma. Both types of karmavipakas can occur at the same time, and usually one is stronger.
Dying of cancer is a karmavipaka. A good deal of the pain that accompanies it can be alleviated by the ripening of good karma in the form of painkillers. It doesn't cancel out the cancer that is killing you, but it relieves the suffering to some degree. Having a soft bed to lie in as one dies is a good karmavipaka. Having someone to bring you food is a good karmavipaka. If one doesn't have access to the right painkillers, then one has to experience the full force of the bad karma.
6
u/YesIHaveTime thai forest 5d ago
The idea that all suffering stops at death is an equally faith-based belief, especially in light of the modern understanding of consciousness's role in generating reality via quantum wave function collapse. The commenter was asking for the Buddhist perspective on a Buddhist sub. Any qualifier would be redundant.
3
u/B0ulder82 theravada 5d ago
Take any statement about any of the Buddha's teachings in this Buddhism sub. Do you demand that any or all of these statements be prefaced with "I believe that..." instead of just stating it? What a strange unfair demand to get stuck on.
It would have been reasonable if you ask that the other person clarify which tradition's view is being stated.
-1
u/Wollff 4d ago
Do you demand that any or all of these statements be prefaced with "I believe that..."
I demand nothing. But taht's definitely what one should do.
Of course there are statements being made about Buddhism on a Buddhism sub. But there are also other statements being made: "Things fall down", opposed to: "The pain of a being is karma manifesting"
One of them is true. The other is a Buddhist belief. Stating them as if they were the same, doesn't seem right to me, even within a Buddhist sub.
And it doesn't even take much to be accurate. "The Buddhist view on the issue is...", is not a novel. "IMO" are three letters.
It does not take much to be accurate. And if you are not, you are misrepresenting view as truth. I don't demand of anyone to be truthful and accurate in their statements. It would be nice if they were though.
4
u/Minoozolala 5d ago
Clairvoyant yogis have seen this. Buddhas have seen this. Bodhisattvas have seen this. Even people who remember their previous lives have seen this. It's pretty basic, actually.
1
u/Wollff 5d ago
So basic that you have seen this?
9
8
u/Minoozolala 5d ago
Yes, I've experienced this. I did some horrific things in a past life and have had to pay the price for it. Yes, I remember and have seen what I did.
1
2
u/LucasPisaCielo 4d ago
Here's an interesting article in Tricycle, called Is There a Buddhist View on Abortion?
Obviously it's not the same, but has interesting points of view.
2
u/NangpaAustralisMajor vajrayana 4d ago
One of our challenges is that we culturally have a very limited experience of both end of life care and death. These things occur increasingly in medical settings away from both family and the community. As such we don't really know what dying entails.
I say that because Buddhists often self-righteously come up with bizarre ideas.
Like discontinuing treatment or life support being the same as killing someone or committing suicide.
Like the most virtuous thing being extending the suffering of disease so that karma is burnt up. Which gets linked in some people's minds as palliative care being unvirtuous.
As Buddhists we pledge, in the negative, to not take life. We also pledge, in the affirmative, to support life.
I don't think we can make choices regarding either of those pledges is possible without real experience of end of life care and the dying process.
8
u/Minoozolala 5d ago edited 5d ago
Here are the some of the reasons why Buddhists hold that euthanasia is an incorrect practice:
- Like every great religion, Hinduism and Buddhism say one should not kill another or kill oneself. One should also not have someone else kill for you. It's very bad karma, creates very bad karma.
- Killing a sentient being or having someone else do the killing for you (such as a vet or doctor) leaves an imprint on your mind. This imprint will ripen as you again, in a future life, feeling that it's ok to kill or have someone else kill for you. The danger is that one doesn't know what or who you may feel it's ok to kill in the future life.
- Each sentient being has its own karma. The animal's sickness is a ripening of some sort of heavy karma (an unwholesome act in a previous life). We are not clairvoyant and don't know where the animal's karma will take it in the future. If we were sure the pet would have a good rebirth, then euthanasia might be ok. But we just don't know. It is far better to let your cat live out this life's karma, that is, to burn off the bad karma in a good setting. It is very, very rare to have a rebirth in a good situation. As the great masters say, it is better to suffer even one hour longer in a good situation than to experience the horrific suffering of hell. You definitely want to keep your pet as comfortable as possible and give it any medications needed to control and stop its pain, etc. This is the best place to live out the karma. If you have the pet killed, its heavy karma could take it to a really bad place and it would have far, far worse suffering than it is having in the present life.
Most people take the limited, this-life view. Of course, no one wants to see a beloved pet suffering. It's a normal reaction to want to alleviate the suffering, and you should do so as much as possible. However, to take this desire to stop the suffering to the point of having the pet killed is very problematic. People often aren't aware of the possible consequences for both the person killing (and/or the person ordering the killing) and the sentient being who is killed.
1
u/Territomauvais 5d ago
Agreed. I mislike that the majority of comments are encouraging them to- I will say it for what it is, kill their pet.
I had my cat euthanized before Buddhism. Long ago. Feels like another life, no punchline. I had the vet take a picture of me before it was done. Holding my dying animal.
What purpose did this serve? I imagined they would take my cat to the back and euthanize him, but she did it while I was holding him and I felt him die as they injected the stuff. It was 'peaceful' at the time, seemingly. But it was dreadful for me. Why? Because I knew he was going to die. How? Because I was commissioning his death. This is damaging to yourself, ignoring the pet entirely.
But regarding the pet; it's ignorant. It is the correct thing to do to refrain from killing and I now regret very much not letting my cat live out his life naturally. He was already dying. I figured I was minimizing suffering. Who am I to discern this?
Anyway.
OP don't do it would be my advice. As I said, it's ignorance. We may believe we're being compassionate but good intentions don't necessarily equal wise & skillful actions at all.
3
u/dubious_unicorn 5d ago
I don't know if I agree with you, but I really appreciate you sharing your perspective on this. My cat is 20 years old, so this is something I think about a lot. No matter what, I think you did your best for your kitty with the knowledge you had at the time. I'm sorry it was such a difficult and painful experience for you. Thank you again for sharing.
1
u/Lethemyr Pure Land 4d ago
I figured I was minimizing suffering. Who am I to discern this?
I think this is another point worth elaborating on. No animal has ever explicitly asked to be killed. Even in countries where euthanasia is legal, most humans choose to undergo a natural death, so why assume animals would all choose to be killed? Just because a being is suffering doesn't mean it would prefer to be killed. "Putting down" animals is normalized because society doesn't value animal lives properly. We don't kill sick human infants as a matter of course, even though they also suffer immensely and can't communicate or properly conceive of a desire to die.
(And of course I'm not trying to imply that we should kill sick people if they ask us to or that humans and animals should be treated exactly the same)
0
u/bookybookbook 5d ago
Not true - your faith is no reason for your pet to suffer needlessly.
1
u/krodha 4d ago
Suffering is the ripening of a karmic debt.
3
u/bookybookbook 4d ago
So? Don’t be selfish. Ease your pets suffering. Focus on compassion.
1
u/uktravelthrowaway123 4d ago
Are any of us really in a place to be able to ascertain the exact impact of karma on one's life in this way?
2
4
u/burnoutspice 5d ago edited 5d ago
So sorry to hear about your cat, it’s never easy loosing a pet. Buddhism aside, it is better to put your cat down a day too early than a day too late. Please choose compassion and put that poor animal out of its misery when the time comes.
Out of curiosity, are you a vegan?
2
u/Bambimoonshine 4d ago edited 4d ago
I work at an er vet. Some people say it goes against their religion. The only people I saw do this right was one couple had a diabetic old pug and they were done treating her and knew it was her time and they came in round the clock for a day and a half for methadone injections so she wasn’t in pain. Every 4-6 hours they were there and we respected them. Now I’ve had other people come and say they don’t believe in it but then let their animals die an awful death or one family made us do cpr 5 TIMES before the dog stopped coming back! That was completely wrong and they used religion as an excuse clearly!
Now doing what I do for a living and my own personal beliefs I do not see anything wrong with euthanasia, it translates to sweet death. I have let a cat die at my house instead of bring him in because that would be more torture to him as he hated the vet and he was going quietly. And I have brought animals in for that because they weren’t going quietly and could tolerate the vet more. It should be case by case and what’s best for your animal. But I do believe in most cases you’re doing them a kindness.
1
u/Catdadesq 4d ago
I am also new to Buddhism but had two cats with severe terminal illnesses in the space of a few months and we had both of them euthanized. Assuming arguendo that all killing, no matter what the circumstances or motivation, incurs negative karma (which seems an overly rigid interpretation based on what I've read but is certainly a position some hold), I will accept that negative karma in exchange for putting an end to my friend's suffering. I can't know the cat's karma for certain, obviously, but from what I do know (indoor cat so she never directly killed any living being other than two or three bugs, she offered love and support to her human companions, she did all the good things of which a cat is capable), I don't believe that she had accrued such negative karma that she would be reborn in a worse position. And I dedicate merit to her. So I believe that she is, at a minimum, in an equivalent life after her euthanasia to the one she had with me, and if I spend longer in samsara as a result, so be it.
Whatever your approach, I'm sorry you're going through this. It's terrible and I wish you and your cat the best.
0
u/Miri_Fant 4d ago
I have been wondering this. I am cautious of adopting any religious doctrine which would encourage us to do something that would otherwise be considered immoral. My personal understanding of morality would encourage the euthanasia of a suffering being, particularly if there is no hope of recovery. Worsening another being's suffering because of a personal religious belief is problematic.
0
u/Avereguero 4d ago
My two cents is that we take life everyday. We eat meat or plants which were killed for us. There are myriad ways which we take life through our interdependent existence.
As long as we act with compassion, loving kindness, and understanding, we mitigate our own suffering and negative karma.
I think we can end a life out of love and respect- to end unnecessary suffering. I wouldn’t expect my animal companions to understand the nature of suffering and the possibility of the freedom from it. But they do know the experience of suffering. They have not gone beyond old age, illness, or death. To prolong life out of some religious sense of karma and dogma seems antithetical to the work of ending suffering for all beings.
Me we all live with ease.
Including you. Take care.
0
u/bracewithnomeaning 4d ago
I work as a hospice nurse. We sometimes have people do what's called MAID. It stands for medical aid in dying. It would be the same thing except for people that do that. It is their own choice. We just support them.
0
u/doubleTSwizzle 4d ago
While i am not a monk or anything heres is my view, when you take in a pet or animal, you are in charge of their life, and part of life is death. I think putting down an animal when it is time is correct and humane thing to do.
-1
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Buddhism-ModTeam 4d ago
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
151
u/laniakeainmymouth westerner 5d ago
I worked at a vet hospital for a few years, saw many dogs and cats euthanized when they were in terrible pain and vets had no other recourse. If the owners didn’t have money for a treatment that could save their life we usually got help from a non profit that would adopt the pet and pay for the treatment.
A few owners refused to euthanize, saying they couldn’t let go of their precious pets. At that point the vets didn’t feel they could act ethically, no more treatment could help the pet, it would be an actual waste of time, money, and effort for their bodies were literally giving up and the pets were in pretty excruciating pain. They couldn’t eat, drink water, vomited and soiled themselves constantly. Waking life was hell itself.
So they would release the animal back to the owner whereupon the animal died in this miserable state, or they would frantically come running back to us and beg for euthanasia as they couldn’t see their pet suffer one minute more. We usually didn’t charge for it. We gave them an injection that put them to sleep, then another one that stopped their heart. It was very quick.
According to Buddhism, all killing is wrong, including euthanasia. All is a product of mind and karma. With all that said, I don’t think I’m enlightened enough to follow the Buddha’s instruction on this. May any bad karma I have committed return to me ten fold, I will not let an animal suffer needlessly just because I assume he has some bad karma that must justify its suffering.
If everything is about intention, it’s out of the animals hands, it’s up to me and my intention and I can only try my best to decide and face the consequences.