Pain killers at death

Palliative measures can and should be employed whenever possible to mitigate pain and suffering, but the clouding of consciousness through the use of excessive anodyne (pain-killing) therapy should be avoided, as a conscious exit from this plane is beneficial for spiritual evolution. Death should be approached as a spiritual practice by dying persons, relatives, and friends.

About Tashi Nyima

I am a Dharma student, and aspire to be a companion on the path. I trust that these texts can offer a general approach and basic tools for practicing the Buddha's way to enlightenment. ||| Soy un estudiante del Dharma, y aspiro a ser un compañero en el sendero. Espero que estos textos ofrezcan a algunos un mapa general y herramientas básicas para la práctica del sendero a la iluminación que nos ofrece el Buda.
This entry was posted in Ayurveda, Dharma View and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Pain killers at death

  1. There are such indescribable pains which throw the person into an unconscious state.The pain killing therapy at least brings a relief and it is possible that while we consider that person as being in an unconscious state, in fact, s/he uses this relief to make a conscious exit

  2. As I said before, we cannot decide what is “excessive”.Lots of facts have demonstrated that a person in coma (that is, fully unconscious) can be aware of what happens to him and can be guided spiritually, though he does not display any sign of awareness. Unless this pain is an obligation, and yes, the person must receive a limited help, I do not see the point for suffering such horrible pains.

    • Tashi Nyima says:

      No one is suggesting that persons undergo horrible pains, nor that pain is an obligation. It is a fact, however, that excessive use of pain killers (more than enough to control pain, causing loss of awareness) is rampant in contemporary medical practice.

      In any case, i am just conveying a traditional Buddhist teaching. Everyone can choose to do as s/he pleases. Practice is always voluntary.

  3. Well, I should consider that – you just convey the teaching and it is my fault to start a discussion.
    Also, you says that you convey a traditional Buddhist teaching- and this does not mean that Buddha has taught it. Also, I do not believe that we have such a large choice but rather, a limited one: it must or must not (no matter what kind of teaching or religion).
    Well, again, it was my fault to start this discussion. All the best

    • Tashi Nyima says:

      There is no fault at all. Teachings should be discussed. I understand that your concerns arise from compassion for those who are suffering, and that is always admirable.

      The Buddha did teach that one should avoid “intoxication leading to heedlessness”. It is the fifth precept. Taking medicine is allowed, but not to the point of intoxication (defined as entering a mental state in which one does not know what to accept and what to avoid).

      Please feel free to post any comments. You are always welcome on this blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s