The recent Parliamentary discussion on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024 [Assisted Dying Bill or ‘ADB’, for short], has sparked intense debate on life, death, and individual autonomy. The Bill seeks to provide terminally ill, mentally competent adults the option to end their lives with dignity. However, the absence of perspectives from Dharmic-faiths—Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, and Buddhism—is concerning. These communities, representing over 1.5 million people in the UK, possess profound philosophical traditions that could enrich this ethical debate. Their exclusion from the government’s consultation paper reveals a missed opportunity to engage in a more inclusive and comprehensive dialogue.
Dharmic-faiths present a distinctive ethical framework on life and death. They view life as sacred and the body as a temporary vessel for the soul (Ātman) or, in the case of Buddhism, a transient manifestation of consciousness. The Bhagavad Gītā (2.22) illustrates this concept through a metaphor: “Just as a person discards worn-out clothes and dons new ones, so the soul discards old bodies and enters new ones.” However, preservation of the body is considered a duty, as it serves as vehicle for fulfilling Dharma—the ethical responsibilities necessary for sustaining the individual, society, and the cosmos [śarīramādyaṃ khalu dharmasādhanam, (Kumarsambhava, 5.33)]. Consequently, premature-termination of the body is generally discouraged.
Another central tenet, the law of karma, asserts that every action has consequences. Karma is categorised into prārabdha (ongoing-karma), sanchit (accumulated-karma), and agāmi (future-karma). The karmic-principle dictates that one must endure the consequences of past actions within the current life until prārabdha-karma is exhausted. Ending life prematurely interferes with this natural process, resulting in unresolved karmic-debts that must be borne in future incarnations.
However, Dharmic-faith-traditions also recognise exceptions where the voluntary ending of life may be permissible. One such exception is when the act is spiritually motivated. In Yogic traditions, practitioners may enter mahāsamādhi, a conscious and intentional departure from the body.
Another exception is when an individual, typically in old-age or suffering from a terminal-illness, can no longer fulfill their societal or Dharmic duties due to physical-decline. In such cases, relinquishing the body is permitted. However, even in these instances, the principle of karma remains central. The body’s natural decline must be allowed to run its course, ensuring that prārabdha-karma is fully exhausted. For instance, practice of Sallekhana or Santhārā in Jain-traditions involves gradually fasting to death as a means of destroying rebirth-influencing karma. These acts are not considered suicide in the conventional sense but are viewed as acts of spiritual liberation.
When examined through this Dharmic-faiths’ lens, ADB presents some ethical challenges. The Bill allows terminally ill adults with a prognosis of six months or less to seek assistance in ending their lives. Yet, if spiritual intent or infirmity to serve society and Dharma are not the sole intentions to terminate the body-life prematurely, cases under the ADB would not meet the criteria outlined in the exceptions above. Moreover, the active administration of life-ending substances (clause 20) conflicts with the karmic principle of non-intervention, as prārabdha-karma must be allowed to unfold naturally.
There is a crucial distinction between passive and active assisted dying. Passive methods, such as withholding life-sustaining treatment, may align with Dharmic-faiths’ principles as they permit the natural course of life and death. In contrast, active methods involve direct intervention and are generally inconsistent with Dharmic faiths’ teachings unless motivated by spiritual purposes. ADB, primarily endorsing active intervention, has to meet a high standard of purpose test to satisfy ethical conditions required by Dharmic faiths.
Furthermore, informed decision-making on assisted dying necessitates introspection (often spiritual), engagement with religious texts, and consultation with spiritual leaders, none of which are adequately facilitated under the current framework. Palliative care and psychological support (clause 9) of ADB don’t address the need for spiritual-guidance. The UK healthcare facilities currently lack adequate faith-based support for Dharmic communities.
Therefore, while Dharmic traditions acknowledge limited circumstances under which the voluntary ending of life may be permissible, the Assisted Dying Bill does not sufficiently address these nuances. Without a robust infrastructure for spiritual guidance and faith-based support, the ethical and cultural justification for assisted dying remains incomplete for Dharmic-faith communities.
