Non-Killing vs. Life-Saving: The Precept Dilemma and Practical Contingency of Daoist Physicians in the Use of Animal-Derived Medicines

Within Daoism, a specific genre of biographical narratives emerged about Tao Hongjing (456–536 CE) and Sun Simiao (581–682 CE). These stories claim that the two Daoist physicians recorded the use of animal-derived medicines in their medical works, a practice that inflicted harm on living beings. As a result, they suffered karmic retribution that hindered their paths to immortality. This genre directly highlights the precept dilemma faced by Daoist physicians when using animal-derived medicines. Daoism takes “non-killing” as its fundamental precept, and reinforces the sanctity of the killing taboo through the doctrines of karmic retribution and Inherited Retribution (Cheng fu 承負). However, the widespread and often irreplaceable use of animal-derived medicines in ancient Chinese medical practice forced Daoist physicians to confront the ethical dilemma of “killing a life to save a life”. Based on the doctrinal foundation of the Daoist precept of non-killing, the use of animal-derived medicines by Daoist physicians faced at least three obstacles: (1) conflict with the Daoist thought of Valuing Life; (2) deterrence from the concept of karmic retribution; (3) the sense of guilt experienced by Daoist physicians themselves. Correspondingly, Daoist doctrine also developed adaptive interpretations, which left room for contingency in the use of animal-derived medicines by Daoist physicians. This adaptive approach reflects the relatively tolerant, practice-oriented characteristics of Daoist doctrinal interpretation. It also provides traditional intellectual resources for addressing animal ethics issues in religion and medicine.