Page 2 - december-2025

No. She chose it because the suffering became unbearable.
It makes me think – if I were in that situation, I would not
want my family to witness my pain. But from a dhärmic
perspective, is it wrong?

Many people have vague ideas about morality. Dharma is not
always defined by societal rules. Laws regarding euthanasia
vary: most countries forbid it, while some, like Canada, the
Netherlands, and parts of Australia, allow it under strict
regulations. Society establishes laws according to practical realities.

From a dhärmic standpoint, our scriptures allow one to
refuse food or treatment and let the body take its natural course.
No one can extend or shorten life beyond what is destined.
Suicide is different; it is a deliberate act to end life. Allowing
the body to die naturally, including refusing treatment, is
acceptable in dharma.

To illustrate, consider an example I once observed: A cow
donated to an ashram injured its leg. Despite our best efforts –
bandaging, care, and feeding – the cow was unable to recover.
We cannot fully control suffering, even when every possible
measure is taken. The cow endured pain it could not understand
– and eventually had to be allowed to pass away. Just as we
must make compassionate decisions for animals in unavoidable
suffering, human beings in extreme pain may also need to
make choices about ending prolonged suffering.

The first duty is not to give up
worldly duties and take to a
life of solitude, but to lead a
life of selfless activity for the
purification of the mind.
Swami Tapovan Maharaj

Tapovan Prasad 31 December 2025