The Supreme Court has now constituted a committee to look into Aruna Shanbaug’s mental and physical state, and examine the scope of passive euthanasia under our Constitution with regard to her case. Puneites react.
I believe the right to die is an important individual right
When I was president of the International Federation of Aging, we were asked to prepare a draft on principles of the right to work and right to die. We made a draft and sent it to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. Some countries opposed the right to work saying it would bring a lot of economic pressure on the government. A few Latin American countries and Catholic countries opposed euthanasia. After returning to India, we prepared a private bill on the right to die and submitted it in the Maharashtra assembly around 20 years ago. We are still pursuing that bill.
I believe the right to die is an important individual right. You cannot ignore someone’s wish to die in a dignified manner and end prolonged suffering. This is a fundamental right and everyone should be entitled to it. I am against doctors assisting in dying without the consent of the patient. Passive mercy killing with the consent of the person who wants to die, by withdrawing his/her life support, should be allowed.
Sharadchandra Gokhale, president, International Longevity Centre
Will the legal system be able to prevent misuse of euthanasia?
Every human being has the right to live with dignity and take a call on whether to live through chronic pain or end the suffering. Whether euthanasia is possible or not in India is a big question.
The country has a huge population and how far the legal system will be able to prevent misuse of the right to die (euthanasia) is a grave concern. The biggest worry is that it can be used for mass murder.
There are two types of mercy killing. Firstly, passive euthanasia can be allowed, wherein the doctor, with the consent of the patient and relatives, withdraws the medical support system that is keeping the patient alive. With rigid control and written consent of the patient, this kind of passive euthanasia can be worked out. Active euthanasia, wherein specific steps are taken to cause the patient’s death by injecting a lethal poison, either with the help of a doctor or someone else, must not be allowed.
Dr CB Koppiker, managing trustee & director (Medical Services), Prashanti Cancer Care Mission
A person’s life cannot be controlled by mechanical laws
The law should not regulate the life and death of a person. A person’s life cannot be controlled by mechanical laws. The individual and his/her family should have the option of doing what they want. The situation is changing and modern concepts are being adopted. However, legalising mercy killing is in no way justified. Euthanasia should be allowed in rare cases where the patient is beyond recovery. However, in such cases also, the patient should have the right to decide whether s/he wants to die a natural death or not. Legalisation should be with the
option of choice, not as an inflexible law.
Asim Sarode, lawyer & human rights activist
Many patients want treatment only if it helps them live with dignity
Doctors are trained to cure, so I cannot give my consent to euthanasia. On a personal level, I feel it is important to lead your life with dignity. I have come across many patients who
insisted that they do not want to prolong their lives and I should treat them only if I can ensure them a life of dignity. These were all terminally-ill patients or those suffering from advanced stages of cancer.
The government needs to formulate a policy on how euthanasia can be permissible. There is a conflict among countries on allowing euthanasia. Aruna Shanbaug has been virtually brain-dead for many years. The government must look for a way out for her. If India comes out with a law allowing passive
euthanasia (mercy killing), it must be carefully formulated so that it is not misused. The law must be rigid and should be allowed only if the patient and relatives give a written consent that is backed by counselling.
Shona Nag, consultant oncologist, Jehangir & Sahyadri hospitals
Legalising euthanasia is not the solution to end someone’s pain
Legalising euthanasia has many angles to it. For those of us who are not related to patients who are suffering, it is easy to say that mercy killing should be legalised as it will end their pain.
However, we cannot ever fathom what the families and relatives of the patients are going through. How can they allow the killing of their loved ones?
I feel it is murder. If a patient’s condition is bad, we should make him/her feel better. And in case the circumstances are grave, the doctor will define the limit of a patient’s life to the family.
Legalising mercy killing is not the solution to end someone’s suffering. This kind of a legislation will bring other complications like people killing relatives for property and so on. Unethical crime will definitely go up.
Bitopi Kaashyap, philosophy & media student
We cannot deny that miracles happen and patients get cured
I think euthanasia is justified in certain cases. To end someone’s suffering may be the right thing to do at times. All of us know that mercy killing takes place without the world knowing about it.
We cannot deny that miracles happen. Some patients do come out of terminal illnesses and survive. Regulating someone’s death does not seem fair. Moreover, legalising euthanasia will undoubtedly bring a battery of moral considerations knowing how culturally sensitive India is. We are emotional people and it is not easy for us to decide this for those we love, whatever the circumstances. The decision should depend on the sufferer’s wish, his/her family and the severity of the case.
Maitrayee Manglurkar, copywriter, Pratisaad Communications
Comments