Prliminary Update on Euthanasia and Mr. Brinkley

[Guest guest]

OM!

 

I said I'd post an update on researching the moral/ethical aspects

of euthanasia. Since Dannion Brinkley may very well influence laws

in this country, I regard this issue to be quite important. I am

still getting input. So far this is something preliminary I've come

up with:

 

"First, let's define 'euthanasia': 'The act or practice of ending

the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an

incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of

extraordinary medical treatment'. Mercy killing is wrong but the

suspension of extraordinary medical treatment does not have to be

wrong. Everyone has the right to refuse medical treatment AND food

and water. Suicide is wrong because we do not have the right to take

life since we do not have the power to create life.

 

"Meher Baba said this about suicide: 'Ordinarily, life in the

physical body is terminated only when the sanskaras released for

expression in that incarnation are all worked out. In some

exceptional cases the soul has to give up its gross body before the

working out of these sanskaras is completed. For example, the man

who commits suicide cuts short the period of his life artificially

and thereby prevents the working out of those sanskaras which were

released for fructification. When, due to untimely death, the

sanskaras released for fructification are withheld from expression,

the discarnate soul remains subject to the propelling force of these

sanskaras even after the physical body has been discarded. The

momentum of the sanskaras which were prevented from being worked out

is retained even in life after death, with the result that the

departed spirit greatly desires the things of the gross world.

 

"'In such cases, the discarnate soul experiences an irresistible

impulsion towards the gross world, and craves for gross objects so

badly that it seeks gratification of its desires through the gross

body of those souls which are still incarnate. Thus the soul may

want so much to drink wine that it takes to unnatural methods of

gratifying the craving. It awaits its opportunity. When it finds

some person drinking wine in the gross world it satisfies its own

desire through that person by possessing his physical body. In the

same way, if it wants to experience the gross manifestations of

crude anger, it does so through a person in the gross world who is

feeling angry. Such souls are constantly waiting to meet and obsess

some incarnate persons of similar sanskaras, and they try to

maintain their contact with the gross world through others as long

as possible. In life after death, any lingering entanglement with

the gross world is a serious hindrance to the natural flow of

the soul's onward life. Those who are subject to this precarious

condition must be looked upon as particularly unfortunate, since

they invite upon themselves and others much unnecessary suffering by

seeking unnatural gratification of coarser desires through others

who are still incarnate'".

 

"Assisted suicide is therefore clearly wrong. If someone clearly

wants to die and is not being forced fed I believe that not taking

food (and even water) is not that difficult.

 

"If someone has made his or her intentions clear that should they

become incapacitated they do not want to be kept alive, that is

moral and his/her wishes should be honored. THE PROBLEM, of course,

is when someone cannot communicate and his/her wishes are unknown.

In such a case, I think, the decision to withdraw life support

should be made by the family along with the doctor. Suppose, though,

that in the future it would be possible to remove the brain of

someone and keep it alive for decades, and the family opts for that.

New laws would have to be passed to prevent something so outrageous

(even if the patient chose that option himself in a Living Will--the

exception being if a private company offered that to people who

wanted it and could pay for it).

 

"Laws will have to be passed so that in some cases a panel of

doctors can override the family's decision to keep someone alive, as

in a case where the brain is completely destroyed yet the body can

survive on life support for years."

 

Thanks everyone for their input.

 

Jai Ma!

 

Umesh