The Supreme Court’s decision in the Aruna Shanbaug case for mercy killing is awaited on Monday. The government on Wednesday concurred with the KEM Hospital staff in their opposition to the plea for euthanasia. Prominent Puneites share
their views on the subject
Prolonging the life of someone who has no chance of living is wrong
Euthanasia should be permitted under certain circumstances. Just the way we have the right to life, the right to death should also be a legal right. The two reasons for opposition — one that says, ‘Man cannot take away what he cannot give’ and the other which talks about blanket permission that can be misused — are well-founded. However, in certain cases like Shanbaug’s, it is justified to grant the right to death. There is no hope for her to live, so till when can the service of a public hospital be utilised? Prolonging the life of someone who has no chance of living is wrong.
We oppose mercy killing due to the notion that death is something terrible, which in itself is incorrect. In a seminar I attended recently, the speaker made a stunning comment that death is the biggest invention of life. Death allows one to die and another life to be born. It is a process. Thus, under strict conditions, the right to death should be allowed.
A few years ago, we faced a similar issue regarding abortion. Abortion is wrong, but medical termination of pregnancy due to a problem faced by the mother is appropriate. In the same way, mercy killing in certain cases and under strict conditions should be made legal.
Bhanu Kale, editor, Antarnaad
I believe people should have the right to choose death
I completely support euthanasia. As a lawyer, I have worked on this subject in New York. I belong to a group that believes in 100% voluntary death. Mercy killing is not murder.
Aruna Shanbaug is unable to opine on her condition or death. The doctors and others involved are giving their views on it.
I believe in voluntary death, the right of a person to choose death. Article 21 of our Constitution talks about the right to live, but there is no reference to death. The right to die remains a disputable issue and petitions that have been filed in this regard are still pending.
The judgment in Shanbaug’s case will also not solve this issue. This is because it would be a case-based decision depending on the circumstances of the patient. We are habituated to making irrational arguments like ‘we cannot play with the life god has given us’ and ‘we don’t have the right to death in that context’. I am an atheist, so these arguments do not make sense to me. The fundamental issue needs to be resolved.
In the film Samantar, the happy industrialist wants to die voluntarily. Even if someone leads a healthy and good life, but wants to end his/her life, s/he should have the right to it. We talk about Sant Dnyaneshwar’s samadhi; he also chose to sit and wait for death. We can find traces of such incidents in our Vedas as well. A person for whom life is a struggle should have the right to end his/her life.
Sandhya Gokhale, lawyer & scriptwriter of film on voluntary death, Samantar
In Shanbaug’s case, it is about prolonging death, not life
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.
A committee consisting of medical and non-medical experts should be formed and assigned for the decision in this case. Let them go through all the details. I feel the committee will surely hold euthanasia as the solution.
Dr HV Sardesai, consultant physician
We haven’t reached a stage to handle euthanasia responsibly
Our society is still not mature enough to make a legislation on passive euthanasia. The biggest concern is that it could be misused rather than serving its rightful purpose. Before taking a decision, deep thought has to be given to various aspects. I agree that just as a person has the right to live, s/he should have the right to die with dignity. However, our society is still naïve in such matters. We need to mature to a stage where passive euthanasia can be put to use responsibly, for terminally ill and incurable patients.
Col (retd) NS Nyayapathi,founder director, Care India Medical Society
It’s an act of mercy, but can be misused in a country like ours
I support the idea that aged patients, who are bedridden for a long time due to a terminal illness, should be allowed to choose death, if they wish so. Euthanasia looks cruel, but it is better than keeping a terminally ill person alive with a life-support system making it more painful for him/her. It is an act of mercy.
In India, the only fear of making such a law is its misuse, especially in rural areas. Our country is huge and our rural areas are still out of the reach of law. Thus, euthanasia can be a risky tool if made legal. The law would have to be stringent and permit it only with medical assistance.
Aruna Shanbaug has been suffering for 37 years. Almost her whole life has been spent in pain and suffering that is beyond our imagination. The apex court must look into her euthanasia plea on humane grounds. A terminally ill patient on life support is kept alive artificially. In the absence of such support, the patient would have died a natural death much earlier. Miracles do happen in reviving patients if there is the slightest hope. However, if there is no hope left, the patient must get a choice of
ending his/her life.
Dr Pandurang Kulkarni, Ayurveda consultant
A mature democracy like India must allow euthanasia in certain cases
This debate has been on for long. The practice of voluntarily leaving the body is also mentioned in our religious books. Vinoba Bhave, a staunch supporter of Gandhism, died after refusing food and medicine for a few days. His decision to end his life became a topic of debate at that time.
As a medical practitioner, I feel euthanasia must be allowed in exceptional cases, strictly under medical supervision and within the ambit of law. The fear of misuse cannot be the sole factor for not making euthanasia permissible in India.
The right to live or die should be given equally. If the patient suffers from a severe illness and living has become a burden for him/her and the family, s/he should have the right to get out of the misery of that pain. Such a patient should be allowed to die peacefully.
The Supreme Court should take a sensible
decision. Taking the suffering of terminally ill patients into
consideration, a mature democracy like India must make
euthanasia legal.
Dr Kalyan Gangwal, consulting physician
Comments: 3