Author name: Nitish Rai Parwani

Perspective of Dharmic-Faiths on the British Assisted Dying Bill Author: Asian Voice and Nitish Parwani 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.

Author: Asian Voice and Nitish Parwani This article was written by the journal Asian Voice featuring one of our researchers, Nitish Parwani. To view the original article click here. This week marked a significant escalation in the ongoing war in Ukraine, as the US and UK crossed a boundary set by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both nations allowed Ukraine to fire Western-supplied longer-range missiles into Russian territory, intensifying the conflict. The UK is believed to have allowed its Storm Shadow missiles to be used in Russia’s Kursk region, while the US has given the green light for its ATACMS weapons to target sites within Russia. In response, Putin issued a stark warning to the UK, the US, and any other nations providing such weapons, stating that Russia considers itself entitled to strike military facilities in those countries that enable the use of their weapons against Russian targets. As the war enters its third year, Putin’s threats raise an urgent question about what he will do next. The Kremlin has accused the “collective West” of escalating the war, despite a history of being the primary actor driving escalation in the quest to assert control over Ukraine or, at the very least, to secure peace on his terms. From his initial full-scale invasion to his annexation of Ukrainian territories, Putin has repeatedly raised the stakes. This week alone, he deployed North Korean troops to the Kursk region and  targeted Ukraine’s Dnipro with a new hypersonic missile apart from issuing explicit threats to the West. Nitish Rai Parwani, Head of the ‘Diasporic communities’ desk at the International Centre for Sustainability (ICfS), shared his perspective on this whole situation with Asian Voice, stating, “The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, now nearing its third year, continues to reshape global geopolitics. With leadership change in the United States, the dynamics of international involvement are likely to shift significantly. Donald Trump has hinted at reducing US funding to Ukraine and prioritising negotiations, signalling a possible pivot in Western strategy. As a NATO member, a US ally, and a friend of Ukraine, the UK has supported Ukraine through military aid and sanctions on Russia, despite the economic costs. However, a shift in US policy may prompt the UK to reconsider its approach. “The UK faces critical decisions as these dynamics evolve. A potential improvement in US-Russia relations under Trump, alongside Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO or other global alliances, demands a careful balancing act. Furthermore, the post-war landscape will require the UK to reassess its international engagement strategy, fostering ties with both nations while safeguarding its national interests. Adopting India’s pragmatic diplomacy could guide the UK in aligning its long-term goals with global peace and stability. “Amid this, India’s diplomatic stance stands out as a model of balance and maturity. By maintaining cordial relations with both Russia and Ukraine, India has leveraged its position to advocate for dialogue and a peaceful resolution while avoiding overt alignment. This strategy has allowed India to safeguard its strategic interests and promote peace simultaneously.” Diplomatic tensions heighten Russia expelled a British diplomat on Tuesday, accusing him of espionage and escalating tensions between the two countries. Moscow stated that it would not tolerate “undeclared” intelligence officers operating on its soil, further fuelling an ongoing diplomatic dispute with London. The British government has denied the allegations, rejecting claims that one of its embassy employees was a spy. This marks the latest in a series of espionage accusations that have contributed to the already fraught relationship between the two nations. The Russian foreign ministry summoned British Ambassador Nigel Casey after the FSB (Federal Security Service) claimed to have uncovered a British spy. The FSB identified the diplomat as the embassy’s second secretary and accused him of conducting “intelligence and subversive activities” that threatened Russia’s national security. Moscow’s foreign ministry stated that the diplomat was being expelled for providing false information on his visa and accreditation applications. State media footage showed Ambassador Casey surrounded by journalists as he arrived at the foreign ministry in Moscow. The UK government quickly rejected the accusations, dismissing them as malicious and unfounded. A Foreign Office spokesperson stated, “This is not the first time that Russia has made baseless accusations against our staff. We will respond in due course.” This expulsion follows the earlier ejection of six British diplomats by Russia, also on espionage charges. In a separate move, Russia’s foreign ministry announced a travel ban on several British cabinet ministers, citing what it described as London’s “Russophobic” policies. Among those targeted were Chancellor Rachel Reeves, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, and ministers from various sectors including education, environment, health, and energy. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Moscow has added hundreds of Western politicians, journalists, and business leaders to its “stop list” in retaliation for Western sanctions and travel restrictions. The US Embassy in Kyiv was closed on Wednesday, November 20, due to concerns over a “potential significant air attack,” according to a statement from the Department of State’s Consular Affairs. “Out of an abundance of caution, the embassy will be closed, and embassy personnel have been instructed to shelter in place,” the statement read. “The US Embassy advises American citizens to be prepared to take shelter immediately if an air alert is issued,” the message posted on the embassy’s website added.