Buddhist Bioethics

A reflection on James Hughes' Buddhist Bioethics:

The discussion of Buddhist bioethics highlights the complexity of ethical traditions that, while distinct from Western frameworks, nonetheless resonate with key moral concerns found in broader philosophical and theological discourse. One of the most striking aspects of Buddhist bioethics is its reliance on a teleological virtue ethics, in which moral reasoning is grounded in the pursuit of enlightenment rather than strict deontological obligations or purely consequentialist outcomes. This emphasis on cultivating moral virtue and intentionality is compelling, particularly in the context of medical ethics, where actions often carry both positive and negative consequences. The Buddhist notion that morality is grounded in a natural law of karmic causality offers an intriguing parallel to Christian ethical teachings, which emphasize a moral order inscribed into creation.

A key area of overlap between Buddhist and Christian ethics is the centrality of compassion. In Buddhist thought, the bodhisattva embodies selfless compassion, dedicating themselves to alleviating suffering through skillful means. This idea resonates with the Christian ethic of agape, or self-giving love, which is foundational to Christian moral reasoning. The Christian commitment to healing and care for the sick, as seen in the works of Jesus and the ethical teachings of the Church, closely aligns with Buddhist principles of non-maleficence and beneficence.

However, the two traditions diverge in their conceptions of self. Christianity holds that human beings are created in the image of God, endowed with an intrinsic dignity that remains constant, whereas Buddhist ethics is shaped by the doctrine of anattā (no-self), which suggests that personal identity is an illusion. This divergence between Buddhist and Christian ethics emerges in discussions of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Buddhism’s emphasis on the transitory nature of existence and its rejection of attachment to the physical body sometimes leads to a more permissive stance. By contrast, Christian ethics upholds the intrinsic value of each person’s life, regardless of suffering, and insists that true compassion lies not in hastening death but in accompanying the dying with care and dignity.

So God created mankind in his own image,
   in the image of God he created them;
   male and female he created them.

— Genesis 1:27 (NIV)

Another key area of consideration is healthcare access and justice. The Buddhist perspective, as discussed in the text, tends to emphasize compassion and care for the poor, yet it does not provide a clear doctrinal basis for the practice. In contrast, Christian ethics strongly affirms that healthcare is a fundamental human right, as the belief that all human beings are created in God’s image compels an ethical commitment to justice and the preferential option for the poor. As seen in the parable of the Good Samaritan, Christian teachings emphasize the moral duty to care for the most vulnerable, advocating for healthcare systems that prioritize need rather than ability to pay. Either way, both Buddhist and Christian perspectives contrast with market-driven healthcare models that allocate resources based on wealth rather than moral urgency.

Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead … a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ … Go and do likewise.”

— Luke 10:30,33-35,37 (NIV)

Despite their differences, Buddhist and Christian ethics share an appreciation for moral intentionality, compassion, and the rejection of purely utilitarian calculations. Both traditions recognize that ethical decision-making cannot be reduced to rigid rules alone but must account for the complexities of human suffering and the call to alleviate it. While each tradition has its own foundational principles, both contribute to a broader understanding of what it means to act ethically in the face of difficult choices, making them invaluable for anyone seeking to navigate the complexities of bioethical reasoning with intellectual depth and moral clarity.