Euthanasia has assumed phenomenal importance of late, in fact a debate whether it should be recognized as a right or not has been going on for quite sometime in India, some organizational moves and legislative measures are also in this regard. There isn’t one dimension to this debate behind euthanasia or mercy killing as it is popularly called. Sociological, religious and practical issues cripple a proper addressing to its cause. Thus its legal response presupposes a broad categorization of such issues affecting its understanding.

Euthanasia is not something new or unknown to mankind. In ancient Greece and Rome, helping others to put end to their lives was permitted in certain situations. Ancient Indian philosophical tradition also justifies the idea of a man willing his own death. As per Hindu mythology Lord Rama and his brothers took ‘jal samadhi’ in River Saryu near Ayodhya. Ancient Indian history also tells that Lord Buddha and Lord Mahavir attained death by seeking it. At present we do not have a particular legislation w.r.t. euthanasia but sooner or later we will face cases of people demanding euthanasia.

Aruna Shanbaug has been in coma for years now. The doctors have said there is no chance of recovery at all. In such circumstances it is justifiable to permit euthanasia for the patient. Here, it is not about prolonging life but prolonging death.

Although I believe that if a life of a person has reached a point such that the quality of life has been compromised beyond an acceptable level for them, then they ought to be allowed to end their life in whatever manner they prefer so as to mitigate their sufferings. But in a country like ours, where we do not have a particular legislation on euthanasia, and where the debate on euthanasia in in nascent stage, legalization of euthanasia would not really be a good idea because of following reasons:

1) Indian society which is driven by religion will not accept the concept of euthanasia as the religious scriptures defy the very concept of it.

2) On the day-to-day basis we get to hear truckloads of cases relating to matrimonial and property disputes, so if euthanasia is granted it could become a tool to attain insignificant needs.

3) The problem of abject poverty which is prevailing in India would force the people to resort to euthanasia and escape from pecuniary difficulties of medication.

4) Commercialization of euthanasia may take place as in the case of abortion.

5) In some cases old and the destitute are considered as burden and if euthanasia is legalized, then people may misuse this concept to shove off their responsibilities towards their family member.

So even if in near future we get to have an appropriate legislation on euthanasia then stringent laws should be framed so that euthanasia does not become a substitute for suicide or murder.

Read: “My Trip To The Oldest Democracy Of The World- Malana

scarecrow

Comments

Anonymous guest 6 Mar 2011, 16:50
+1 -0
Debate on Euthanasia must be stopped because constitution clearly mentions about right to life and not right to die. Simply put it, that "you cannot take away what you cannot give"!
cogitasocietatis 6 Mar 2011, 22:33
+1 -0
The points which are mentioned by above are nice. It is true that this mechanism can prove fatal in certain circumstances where several persons would misuse it. What I think is that it wont be possible to legalize Euthanisa in India.
cogitasocietatis 6 Mar 2011, 22:34
+0 -0
* The Points which are mentioned above *
suby0490 7 Mar 2011, 00:28
+1 -0
@#2:thanks..euthanasia will never ever be legalized in india...
pronoy 7 Mar 2011, 17:52
+3 -0
We being human has the utmost duty to serve and save the life of fellow living organisms. If somebody is in death bad and facing pain and trauma, this should not mean that we should allow him/her to die as per his/her wish. We should try our level best to keep him/her alive as we being human being owe to the society the duty towards fellow human being. So, grant of euthanasia is legitimizing the death of human being as per their will and wish, the misuse of which may be devastating. Let us try to save the living organisms and not to try to allow to die. Euthanasia should never ever be allowed.
pronoy 7 Mar 2011, 18:04
+4 -0
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India today rejected the petition of Euthanasia. Thanks Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
Anonymous guest 8 Mar 2011, 11:51
+3 -0
christianity is always on the part of 'LIFE IS TO LIVE'
Anonymous guest 9 Mar 2011, 23:39
+0 -0
UNBELIEVABLE amount of sanctimonious "life is good" arguments here. Why don't we actually ask the people affected?
Anonymous guest 12 Mar 2011, 18:51
+1 -0
I AM ENLIGHTENED BY THE LOVE & CARE SHOWN BY THE NURSES AT KEM HOSPITAL.THEY TRULY TYPIFY THE SPIRIT OF FLORENCE NIGHTINGALE TO OVERCOME THE ODDS THAT HAVE TRAPPED HER SPIRIT IN HER FRAGILE BODY.HER CONTINUING TO LIVE WITH THE CARE GIVEN BY HER COLLEAGUES IN SOME WAY MITIGATES THE CRUEL & INHUMAN BEHAVIOUR OF THE WARD BOY.SHE IS A LIVING TESTIMONY TO ALL OF US TO THE SHRILL & STRIDENT CRIES OF EUTHANASIA BY HOPELESS & DESPERATE PEOPLE.MAY EACH ONE OF US MERIT THE LOVE & SACRIFICE HER CAREGIVERS HAVE SHOWN HER...
Anonymous guest 14 Mar 2011, 03:24
+0 -0
After going through the article given above,i can only say that the Indian judiciary should first and foremost keep Arunas situation in mind. a person who ins in such severe mental and emotional trauma should be allowed to stop suffering. her pain is unimaginable to us.We should bring back the basic reason for the existence of the judiciary-to provide relief and justice. The case put here and its judgment is not acceptable. i am thoroughly against this decision.As a citizen i am incapable of doing anything by raising my voice.
Anonymous guest 14 Mar 2011, 03:52
+0 -0
@10 -

Well, your argument lacks a clear knowledge of the judgment which has been delivered by the supreme. Supreme Court in its judgment has propounded the principle of 'Passive Euthanasia' where High Court is empowered to allow a person to end his life but naturally.

There is another point which you should keep in your mind. Right to life has been provided to each and every citizen of this country but it does not include Right to Life. Considering the situation of Aruna, she is able to respond to what is happening around us. Earlier she was able to take food. She is not in a permanent Vegetative State (PVS, which is the most important condition for passive euthanasia.

If you are allowing Euthansia actively, then you are allowing a person to kill another person. And one of the basic principle which one should keep in his mind is that WHAT YOU CANNOT GIVE, YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT TO TAKE IT AWAY.
Anonymous guest 14 Mar 2011, 04:41
+0 -0
Moreover in this case she is not suffering anything as mentioned in the judgment. She is only getting food through the means of medical tubes whteva they are termed as. Then there is no need to end a pain when a person is not suffering it.