I didn't believe I could improve on this answer much so didn't try. However, I feel that @Sati's view of being around 'completely unawakened' people as being 'insufferable' implied a feeling of superiority to them. Not sure this is right thinking. If I am mis-interpreting the meaning here, I apologize.

@ruben2020 2 questions for thought: 1) are all the cultural norms of 2500BCE India/Nepal to be maintained today? Seems to me a 'yes' answer could lead to some interesting current changes to practices while a 'no' might allow for her to live her life the way she wishes. 2) If a parent can give up the right to children being married and having children (who could fulfill the 5); why cannot she give up children (and marriage)?

Yeshe Tenley. Humbly: You state the "just breathing you are killing countless sentient beings". However most definitions I have seen define sentient beings as something like: "Sentient beings is a term used to designate the totality of living, conscious beings that constitute the object and audience of Buddhist teaching. [Getz (2004: p. 760)]. Could you clarify your statement or is my definition flawed? Regards, Jim

@Stop Obama-Biden Stop War. Given that Adam Barnes has 101 points of reputation here (which allows him to comment) I would guess he has received a +100 point Association Bonus in this and any other Stack Exchange account he has. He must be active in one or more other accounts to do so. Nothing nefarious here, just the rules. Certainly does not allow him to delete any posts. Best & Respectfully.

@ChrisRogers: The definition of “Dianetics” you provided in your question seemed to me so broad as not to be particularly descriptive of the Hubbard concepts. I am not a Scientologist nor a psychiatrist but, in my readings on the subject, I don’t see any connection between the Hubbard concept of “engrams” and the Buddha’s teachings. Could you specifically define your view of how they might be the connected? It might help us in answering your question on the subject.

I am also in agreement with the answer for those serious about delving into the teachings for their deeper understandings. Especially agree with: "Theravada = Pali, Mahayana in general = Sanskrit".

To amplify Max's last line: The Buddha taught that the path to our enlightenment lies solely within us. Likewise, the impediments are solely within us as well. From my personal experience, what you perceive as the world 'fighting' you really arises from your own inability to calm yourself and block out the interference from that inner distraction. Best to you on this effort; it is not easy, Jim

I agree fully with this answer but, since I sense that we share some common traits, I'd like to suggest 2 potential issues which you may encounter as I did with this behavior. I, too, often analyze and try to find the 'best' and have these as personal problems. 1) This approach to choosing might lead to greater attachment to the items you obtain than might be helpful. 2) The time spent in analysis might be better used in other activities which move you closer to enlightenment and away from the physical world's things. Things to think about. Best, Jim

As a follower of the Theravada tradition, I could find no teaching by the Buddha specifically prohibiting a layperson from eating meat under any circumstance. Preference, perhaps, prohibition, no. I’d appreciate correction. But also, @Sushil Fotedar seems to imply the idea that a Buddhist consuming market meat fails the 3rd test disallowing meat killed specifically for the individual. That seems fallacious. If no Buddhist ever bought meat, it still would be offered as others would continue to buy. So this meat cannot be offered specifically for any Buddhist purchaser.

I would agree & I up-voted that answer.

In my humble opinion, this answer does not seem to address the specific question posed by the OP about the caregiver's responsibility in administering drugs to a dying patient. Perhaps amendment of the above could more directly assist the OP? Best, Jim