Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia — Hinduism

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 2, 2.3 (Hinduism). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

A woman with an untreatable illness asks her doctor to help her die. Her family are practising Hindus, and they find that their tradition gives them two answers that both feel binding: do not harm, and do not leave anybody in pain. Nothing in the tradition tells them which of the two wins, and that is not an oversight.

What it means

The specification pairs the sanctity of life with the importance of relieving suffering, and the pairing is the unit. Take the sanctity argument first.

Hinduism's ground for the sanctity of life is the self present in every living being. That makes all life sacred rather than only human life, and it means the principle needs no separate argument to reach animals — which is unusual on this specification. Ahimsa, non-harming in action, word and thought, is the governing principle that follows, and it is the first of the ethical disciplines rather than one among many.

Now the other half. Daya is compassion, and relieving suffering is a duty rather than a kindness. Hinduism does not treat that as competing with non-harming; it treats both as binding, which is exactly why the hard cases are hard.

On abortion, classical texts treat the self as present from conception, which makes ending a pregnancy himsa. Positions range from restrictive — permitted where the mother's life is at risk — to more accommodating traditions that weigh intention and circumstance. There is no ruling, because there is nobody who could issue one.

On euthanasia the interesting material is prayopavesa: a fast to death, traditionally permitted, and permitted only for somebody with no remaining duties and no prospect of recovery. It is not general permission for euthanasia, and the conditions are narrow deliberately. And one honest inclusion: the very high rate of sex-selective abortion in parts of India, which Hindu leaders have condemned as a grave misuse and which is illegal there.

Why believers hold it

The reasoning is genuinely symmetrical, which is why it does not resolve. If the same self is in the foetus, in the patient and in the person deciding, then any taking of life is harm done to something continuous with oneself. But the same identity makes another being's suffering a real evil rather than a distant fact, so relieving it is obligatory. The argument that makes killing serious is the argument that makes suffering serious.

So Hinduism does not settle the question by rule. It settles it case by case through duty — what this person owes, in this situation, at this stage of life — which is why honest descriptions of Hindu positions say tendencies rather than rulings. That is a real structural feature of the tradition and not a failure to have made up its mind.

Prayopavesa is where the reasoning gets sharpest. What it permits is ceasing to sustain a life whose duties are complete; what it forbids is another person ending it. That distinction is close to the one secular palliative medicine draws between withdrawing treatment and administering death — reached from an entirely different premise, which makes it a strong comparison rather than a coincidence.

The two strongest objections deserve to be met. One is autonomy: a competent adult in unbearable pain governs every other medical decision, so why not this one? The tradition answers that the self is not the person's possession to dispose of and that the act has consequences of its own — while prayopavesa shows it is not absolutist. The other is the record: a sanctity principle that has coexisted with sex-selective abortion on a large scale is not obviously doing the work claimed for it. The reply is that this is a failure of practice, condemned by Hindu leaders and illegal — and the objection should be named rather than avoided.

Where it comes from

• Hindu teaching — Ahimsa; Mahabharata and the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (2:30) (translated)

  Ahimsa — non-violence, non-harming.

  The principle of not harming living beings, in action, word and thought. The first of the yamas.

  What it is doing here: Is the governing principle the whole sanctity argument runs through, and its own limits — it was never absolute pacifism — are why it does not settle the hard cases.

• The Upanishads (shruti) — Chandogya Upanishad 6:8:7 (translated)

  Tat tvam asi — That thou art.

  One of the mahavakyas, the great sayings: the atman within is one with Brahman, the ultimate reality.

  What it is doing here: Grounds the sanctity in identity rather than in a grant of value, which is what extends it past human beings without a second argument.

• Hindu teaching — Daan and seva; taught across the epics and in modern Hindu practice (translated)

  Daan — giving; seva — selfless service.

  Giving and service as religious duties which purify the giver as well as helping the receiver, and which generate good karma.

  What it is doing here: Supplies the other half of the tension: relieving suffering is required, so compassion is a duty pulling against non-harming rather than a sentiment.

Where it bites

It shows in vegetarianism, which is the everyday form of non-harming and is practised by a large majority of Hindus, and in Hindu support for palliative care, which is where the two principles can both be honoured at once.

It shows in the traditional recognition of a fast to death under strict conditions, which is a live and much-discussed practice rather than a historical curiosity. And it shows, uncomfortably, in the sex ratios in parts of India, which is why an honest answer names the misuse alongside the teaching.

What people get wrong

People think: Hinduism says abortion is wrong.

Actually: Hindus differ, and there is no authority that could settle it. Classical texts treat the self as present from conception, which pushes towards a restrictive position, and other traditions weigh intention and circumstance. Presenting one tendency as the Hindu ruling is a recorded error, and it hides the reason the question is hard.

People think: Contraception and abortion raise the same question for religious believers.

Actually: Contraception prevents conception; abortion ends a pregnancy that has begun. Traditions treating them alike are the exception rather than the rule, and in Hinduism contraception is widely accepted while abortion is genuinely contested. Merging them is named in the examiner reports.

People think: If suffering is caused by past actions, Hindus have no reason to relieve it.

Actually: Hindu teaching requires compassion regardless of cause, and using the doctrine of consequence to argue against helping is a misuse the tradition itself rejects. Explanation does not remove obligation, and that principle is part of the doctrine rather than a softening of it.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Never write that Hinduism has one position on abortion or euthanasia — say Hindus differ, and say what the difference is between.
• Show the two principles pulling against each other, because the four-mark question here is best answered with one attitude from each side.
• Prayopavesa is the sharpest material in the unit; naming it and its conditions is worth more than a general discussion of dying.
• Keep contraception and abortion separate, since the examiners record candidates merging them.
• For the twelve-mark question, the atman argument is the strongest support for the sanctity of life on this paper, and the fast to death is its sharpest qualification.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

Hinduism's argument for the sanctity of life is atman-based: the same self is present in every living being, so harming any of them is a serious matter. The specification pairs this with the importance of relieving suffering, and the two pull against each other in exactly the euthanasia case. Ahimsa is the governing principle and it does not settle the hard cases by itself.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Ahimsa (also ahinsa)

Non-violence, non-harming; the first and governing principle in Hindu ethics.

Atman

The self present in every living being, which is what makes all life sacred.

Garbha (also garbh)

The embryo or foetus; classical Hindu texts treat the atman as present from conception.

Prayopavesa (also prayopavesha)

A traditionally sanctioned fast to death, permitted in very limited circumstances for someone with no remaining duties.

Daya

Compassion; the value that requires relieving suffering.

What Hinduism teaches

• shared — All life is sacred because atman is present in every living being, which extends the principle beyond humans.
• shared — Ahimsa forbids harming, and it is treated as the first of the ethical principles.
• shared — Relieving suffering is a duty, so compassion is not in competition with ahimsa but sits alongside it.
• divided — Hindus differ on abortion and euthanasia, because ahimsa and compassion give different answers in the hard cases.
  • Vaishnava — Generally more restrictive: the atman is present from conception, so abortion is himsa except where the mother's life is at risk.
  • Advaita Vedanta — Philosophical traditions often emphasise intention and circumstance, and some accept a wider range of cases where suffering would be great.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning is that if the same atman is in the foetus, in the patient and in the person deciding, then any taking of life is himsa against something continuous with oneself. But the same reasoning makes suffering a real evil to be relieved. Hinduism does not resolve this with a rule; it resolves it case by case through dharma, which is why Hindu positions are stated as tendencies rather than as rulings.

Sources of authority

• Hindu teaching — Ahimsa; Mahabharata and the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (2:30) (translated)

  Ahimsa — non-violence, non-harming.

  The principle of not harming living beings, in action, word and thought. The first of the yamas.

  How to use it: Because all beings share in the one reality, ahimsa follows from metaphysics rather than from sentiment — which is a stronger answer than 'Hindus are peaceful'.

  What it does not settle: It is not absolute pacifism in the tradition — the Gita has Krishna urge Arjuna to fight, and kshatriya duty complicates it. That tension is the evaluation.

• The Upanishads (shruti) — Chandogya Upanishad 6:8:7 (translated)

  Tat tvam asi — That thou art.

  One of the mahavakyas, the great sayings: the atman within is one with Brahman, the ultimate reality.

  How to use it: If the self and the ultimate reality are one, then harming another harms what you are — which is the metaphysical root of ahimsa rather than a moral rule added on top.

  What it does not settle: Advaita reads the identity as complete; Vishishtadvaita holds the soul distinct while dependent on God. Presenting one as 'the' Hindu view is inaccurate.

• Hindu teaching — Daan and seva; taught across the epics and in modern Hindu practice (translated)

  Daan — giving; seva — selfless service.

  Giving and service as religious duties which purify the giver as well as helping the receiver, and which generate good karma.

  How to use it: Because the act shapes the giver's own future, Hindu giving has a reason that is not simply altruism — and saying so is a development rather than a restatement.

  What it does not settle: Motive matters: giving for merit alone is criticised within the tradition.

• Hindu teaching — Karma, samsara and moksha; Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita (translated)

  Karma — action and its consequence; samsara — the cycle of rebirth; moksha — release from it.

  Action produces consequence, which shapes future existence within the cycle of rebirth; the goal is release.

  How to use it: Karma is a law rather than a judge: no one is sentencing you, and that is exactly why it answers the problem of suffering differently from Christianity or Islam.

  What it does not settle: Karma is NOT divine judgement and moksha is NOT nirvana. Both confusions appear in the examiner reports and both cost accuracy marks.

Different interpretations

• The atman read as present from conception, which classical texts support, and read as entering at a later stage; the first is dominant.
• Prayopavesa read as a sanctioned exception and read as narrowly restricted to someone with no remaining duties and no prospect of recovery; the second is the traditional framing and it is not general permission for euthanasia.
• Karma read as a reason not to intervene and read as irrelevant to the duty of compassion; Hindu teaching takes the second, and the first is a misuse.

Differences within Hinduism

Ahimsa, the sanctity of life and the duty of compassion are shared. Where Hindus genuinely differ is in the hard cases, and the difference is one of weighting rather than of principle.

• Vaishnava — Restrictive on abortion; euthanasia generally rejected as himsa; prayopavesa narrowly limited.
• Advaita Vedanta — More weight to circumstance and intention; a wider range of positions among modern thinkers.
• Shaiva — Comparable range; practice in India is shaped as much by law and custom as by school.

Application to the issue

It shows in vegetarianism as the everyday form of ahimsa; in Hindu support for palliative care; in the very high rate of sex-selective abortion in parts of India, which Hindu leaders have condemned as a grave misuse and which an honest answer would mention; and in the traditional recognition of prayopavesa in strictly limited circumstances.

Arguments supporting

• Atman-based sanctity reaches all life rather than only human life. — The same self is in every living being, so the principle needs no separate extension to animals. (hinduism)
  Answered by: It also gives no way to rank a human life against an animal's, which practical decisions require.
• Prayopavesa shows Hindu tradition can distinguish a death accepted from a death caused. — It permits a fast to death for someone with no remaining duties, while rejecting killing. (shared)
  Answered by: The distinction is fine and can be used to permit what it claims to forbid, which is why its conditions are so restrictive.

Arguments challenging

• A competent adult in unbearable pain should be able to choose to die. — Autonomy governs every other medical decision. (non-religious)
  Answered by: Hinduism replies that the atman is not the person's possession to dispose of and that the karma of the act matters — though prayopavesa shows the tradition is not absolutist.
• The sanctity principle has not prevented sex-selective abortion. — Sex ratios in parts of India show it on a large scale. (non-religious)
  Answered by: It is a grave misuse condemned by Hindu leaders and illegal in India, and it is a failure of practice rather than an implication of the teaching — but it should be named.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Humanists support assisted dying with safeguards and abortion on the woman's decision, reasoning from autonomy and the reduction of suffering. They regard the atman as unevidenced and would argue that a sanctity principle which has coexisted with sex-selective abortion is not doing the work claimed for it.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether ahimsa or compassion governs when they conflict. Hinduism does not settle it by rule, which is why its positions are plural.

Defensible conclusions

• The atman-based argument is the most inclusive account of the sanctity of life on this specification, because it needs no separate step to reach animals.
• It gives less guidance in hard cases than a rule-based tradition, and Hindu positions on abortion and euthanasia are correspondingly varied.
• Prayopavesa is the most interesting material here, because it shows a tradition distinguishing an accepted death from a caused one without permitting euthanasia generally.

Not defensible

• Saying Hinduism has a single ruling on abortion; the tradition has tendencies rather than a ruling.
• Treating contraception and abortion as the same question, which the examiners name.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three Hindu beliefs about the sanctity of life. Short phrases only.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two attitudes developed, ideally showing ahimsa and compassion pulling in different directions.
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain Hindu attitudes to euthanasia: ahimsa, atman in all beings, the duty to relieve suffering, and prayopavesa.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Life is sacred and must always be protected.' The atman argument is the strongest support and prayopavesa the sharpest qualification.

Common mistakes

• Presenting one Hindu position as the Hindu position.
• Merging contraception and abortion.
• Using karma to argue that suffering should not be relieved, which Hindu teaching rejects.

“Contraception and abortion raise the same question for religious believers.” — Contraception prevents conception; abortion ends a pregnancy that has begun. Traditions that treat them alike are the exception, not the rule.

Write instead: Most religious traditions treat them separately. Catholic teaching rejects both, for different reasons. Many Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh positions accept contraception while restricting abortion. Some methods are contested precisely because a tradition disputes whether they prevent or end — and noticing that is a genuinely sophisticated point. (Named in the 2023 examiner report for Paper 1.)

“Karma is God punishing you for what you did wrong.” — Karma is a law of cause and effect, not a verdict. No one weighs the evidence and no one sentences you; the action itself conditions what follows.

Write instead: Karma is the principle that intentional action produces consequences which shape future experience. In Buddhism it turns on intention specifically. Sikh teaching holds karma alongside God's hukam and God's grace. Sikhism is the genuine middle case: karma operates, and liberation comes by God's grace rather than by accumulated merit. Saying so is a strong distinction.

Grade 9 insight

Hindu tradition recognises prayopavesa — a fast to death permitted only for someone with no remaining duties and no prospect of recovery — while rejecting euthanasia as himsa. A Level 4 answer sees the distinction being drawn: what is permitted is ceasing to sustain a life whose dharma is complete, and what is forbidden is another person ending it. That is close to the distinction secular palliative medicine makes between withdrawing treatment and administering death, arrived at from a completely different premise.

Carry on through Hinduism

• Previous unit: 2.2 · The meaning and purpose of life
• Next unit: 2.4 · Human relationships
• Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia in the other religions: Buddhism · Christianity · Islam · Judaism · Sikhism
• Side by side: Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia across the six religions — Is human life sacred, and may it ever be deliberately ended?
• All of Hinduism · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification