Twitter
Advertisement

Argument for life much superior than death's: legal experts

While the Supreme Court judgment of May 27, 2011 rejecting author Pinki Virani's petition seeking mercy killing for Shanbaug was hailed by the legal fraternity, Monday saw the question whether Shanbaug should have been made to suffer for 42 years raised once again.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

The news of Aruna Shanbaug's death on Monday once again fanned the debate on whether euthanasia should be legalised, in light of the view that one should have the right to end personal suffering or that of a loved one's. Or is it presumptuous to decide that a life is not worth living simple because one cannot conceive of living it oneself?

While the Supreme Court judgment of May 27, 2011 rejecting author Pinki Virani's petition seeking mercy killing for Shanbaug was hailed by the legal fraternity, Monday saw the question whether Shanbaug should have been made to suffer for 42 years raised once again.

The SC bench of justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra had then said: "Active euthanasia (mercy killing) is illegal, yet "passive euthanasia" can be permissible in exceptional circumstances." The SC has also left the issue open for future discussion.

Active euthanasia is generally referred to a state where a patient is given a lethal injection or is allowed to die through any other method in the presence of doctors, while passive euthanasia involves withdrawing a patient's life support system.

Advocate Amit Karkhanis, who has handled several medico-legal cases, feels that life should be valued over death. "The argument for life is much superior to that for death. Because there is always hope against hope," said Karkhanis.Advocate Ashish Comparing compared it to an abortion debate: "There need to be checks and balances on who will decide whether a person/life should live or die?" added Chavan.Senior advocate Srikant Bhat said that under extreme circumstances, a "conditional" approval for death should be allowed. "I would say a conditional yes to the aspect. Just like a person has the right to live, s/he should have the right to die. However in such a condition, a person should make a living will in which they should mention that if they go in a vegetative state, the life support system provided to them should be removed."

Bhat, however, cautioned that a period of six months should be given to the family before approaching the court with the plea for euthanasia. Further, there should be a panel of doctors who would then visit the patient and decide on whether the euthanasia should be allowed, added Bhat.

His opinion was echoed by Chavan, who said that there should be an "informed consent" either the patient himself/herself or a relative. "Only an informed or a qualified person can make such a decision. If a relative or next of kin feels that the patient is suffering a lot and for a long time, then they can suggest euthanasia. However, in such a case the question would be whether the relative is making an informed choice," said Chavan. Many believe that if the terminally ill patient himself/herself is in a position to communicate then it should be allowed, otherwise not . Pointing out the darker side of euthanasia being made legal, advocate Shrikant Shivade said that it could be misused in the existing system. "If the aspect of euthanasia is made legal, then within the present system that we have across the country, we cannot rule out the possibility of the police machinery and the doctors not being corrupt, and favouring family members with ulterior motives in aiding the death of their kin. The number of crimes will rise. So I feel this cannot be made legal in India."

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement