Euthanasia-Mercy Killing

 Euthanasia-Mercy Killing

Right to live is a basic human right which has also been provided by the Constitution of India as a fundamental right. That means everybody is free to live the way he/she intends to. But does that mean to live or not to live is also dependent on one's choice? Is right to die also included in the right to live?

 

The Supreme Court of India says  that it's certainly not the case. One cannot  another aspect related to the right to live, i.e. right to live with dignity. If a  person is unable to live a free and dignified life due to some reasons not under  one's control viz critical illness, paralysis, mental unresponsiveness etc,  then  this right is violated but no one could be held responsible. In such cases, where  even the hope of leading a dignified life ceases to exist, when a person becomes  totally dependent on others for existence, there arises a demand for the right to  death which puts human wisdom to test.

  Euthanasia means killing for good, refers to intentionally ending life of a  person in order to relieve him/her of prolonged uncontrollable pain and  suffering. It could be done in two ways-active or passive. Active euthanasia  pertains to direct intentional killing by physical means or by administering a  lethal dose of a drug or injection.  

Passive euthanasia implies letting one die by withholding or withdrawing  the necessary life support means. Both these forms of mercy killing are legal in  case of animals in many countries. But in case of humans, though passive  euthanasia is legal in many, active form of ending the life has been approved by  only a few. 

 In India, the honourable Supreme Court on 7th March, 2011 legalized  passive euthanasia by means of withdrawal of life support to patients in a  permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as a part of the verdict in a  case involving. 

 Aruna Shanbang, who has been in a permanent vegetative state for past 37  years. The court rejected the plea to discontinue Aruna's life support but  issued a set of broad guidelines legalizing passive euthanasia in India. The plea  in this case was rejected because the hospital staff who took care of Aruna did  not support euthonizing her. The following guidelines were laid down 

• A decision her to be taken to discontinue life support either by parents  spouse or any close relatives or by the doctors attending the patient.  
• Such a decision should be taken bone fide in the best interest of the  patient and it requires approval from the High Court concerned.  

This ruling was accept welcomed by many and even the prominent religious  leaders of the country also termed it as party acceptable. The law ministry  called for initiation of a nationwide debate on it before it could be materialized  as a parliamentary law. On the other hand, some members of Indian medical  establishments and other scholars raised concerns. They argued that in a  country like India where there is a large gap in the social milieu, between rich  and poor and the rule of law is weak and ineffective, it might lead to  exploitation of elderly by their families. 

 It has now been realized that this method to end unbearable pain and  suffering of a being is no crime but it, certainly, may lead to a crime if not  properly monitored. As far as possible euthanasia should be voluntary and if  consent could not be obtained due to patient's inability, the laid down  procedure be strictly followed. In case of violation of the procedure, the  administerer of euthanasia must be liable to be punished.  

This is just a beginning of a long-desired social change in India. The change  must be brought in very cadrefully and gradually and care must be taken in not  letting the unscrupulous elements take advantage of this change to achieve  their mean motives. We are all sons of God and we cannot be allowed to kill  each other under any circumstances. This is the reason active euthanasia could  not be allowed at all. Passive euthanasia too could be allowed only under rare  circumstances, As for as possible, efforts should be made to reduce the pain  and suffering by means of treatment-both physical and mental. Euthanasia has  to be resorted to only when all the other options have been exhausted and there  is no hope left in the future too. 

 Rationality behind the move and moral and ethical validity of the concerned  action is more important than any rule or law. This is because 'Law is for  human beings, we, humans are not for law'.