Euthanasia - a boon or a bane?
"I'm not a criminal for helping my husband to die" , says Ann Whaley who was prosecuted after she assisted her husband, Geoffrey Whaley in his journey, from UK to Switzerland to terminate his life. Geoffrey, suffered from Motor Neuron disease and wanted to plan his end and hence travelled to Switzerland - a country with legalized euthanasia.
Euthanasia - the word which brings in a farrago of opinions, emotions, ethical questioning, resistance and skepticism. It is a practice of consciously planning the end of one's life, often a way out of unbearable suffering and agony. Euthanasia has majorly two types - Passive And Active.
Passive Euthanasia or ' Pulling the plug' is intentionally removing the artificial life support systems, which keeps a patient alive, this is legalized in most of the countries, India being one of them . On the other hand, Active Euthanasia or ' Assisted Suicide', is actively terminating one's life by medical assistance. Though illegal in most of the countries, Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada, stand tall as exemplary examples of legalizing euthanasia and hence, extending the Right to Die.
"Pulling the plug " got legalized in India, under specific dire conditions, after giving a milestone judgment in the Aruna Shanbaug Vs Union Of India Case (2011).
Justice Chandrachud on an order passing passive euthanasia said - "Life and death are inseparable. Every moment our bodies undergo change. Life is not disconnected from death. Dying is a part of the process of living.” Though India, still awaits and yearns for legality on Active Euthanasia.
Article 21, of the Indian Constitution, guarantees, the right to personal liberty. This article has been portrayed as a blank slate, which is making it's gamut more holistic, from time to time. Death is a private matter and state shouldn't interfere into this. By including, the Right to Die, Article 21, will get a whole nine yard approach.
By making Euthanasia legal, patients suffering from excruciating ghastly diseases, will get a way out of their labyrinth of suffering. It will shorten their agony and misery. And, it will not be the ailment which takes over life, but the sufferer who gets to decide. Everyone deserves a peaceful and dignified end to their lives. And, if the state can play a salient role in providing a dignified death then why not.
The most hefty argument against, rather pertinently subterfuge, against euthanasia is the 'slippery slope' argument. That once, euthanasia legalizes, there is no end or regulation to it, which will make law more permissive. Counter - Euthanasia should be allowed only with reasonable stringent restrictions, which basically implies for terminally lethal disease sufferers. Medical Sciences should emphatically accept that they can't cure everything. Rather than making them going through their unbearable sufferings, vegetative inert states, by their will and consent, they should be given an option for assisted suicide. It's reasonable to die, once and for all, rather than dying everyday.
There is also a speculative theory flowing in, that Humongous Pharmaceutical Companies are callously behind this resistance to Right To Die. As they will lose billions of money, if the inert comatose patients with lethal diseases, choose to terminate their lives, instead of living on artificial live support systems ( which is the mother lode of income for them).
Another critical resistance begets from Religion. As most religions ( Roman catholic, Islam etc) consider Human lives to be sacred and God given. So terminating them unnaturally, would be an immoral thing to do. A contrasting stance comes from sections of Hinduism and Buddhism. Sections of Hindus, believe that assisting someone in ending their misery and suffering is a good deed. The practice of " Mahasamadhi" in Hinduism, is intentionally terminating one's life for, spiritual reasons. Though the precepts and reasons are different but, they bring in the same result i.e. Death.
All the skepticism can be surmised into one bigger question, Are we living our lives on Rent? That we need external forces to barge in our inevitable sufferings.
Quote "The tragedy of life is not death, but what we let die inside of us while we are alive" Unquote. A person who is bereft of their living spirit and body shouldn't be dragged and forced to live. Hear their plea, Set them free.
Amazing Kortikaπ―
ReplyDeleteThank you Saloni ❤️
DeleteKeep it up ππ
ReplyDeleteThank you ❤️
DeleteKeep up the great work. You just gave me a very interesting question to ponder upon.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you liked it. Thank you anonymous reader ❤️π
DeleteAbsolutely informative and nicely covered. Kudos to you.
ReplyDeleteThank you Frankfurt ❤️
DeleteVery informative...keep it up girl!!
ReplyDeleteThank you Reader. ❤️π
DeleteWell put!
ReplyDeleteAlbeit would like to bring in an alternative perspective, more commonly observed on a personal level. Talks about the practice of santhara in Jainism wherein the sectarian belief system recognises body (the anatomical truth) as the prison of the human soul.
This is unlike the beliefs in Hinduism, Buddhism and infact jews(reference- the Tisha b'av festival observed by 'em). {who rather tend to recognise the body as a gift}
The pertinent question of santhara has often catalysed a challenge to the Indian secularism and does even involve the interference of the state in the personal laws etc.
I mean , the Supreme court too if you see, in the later half of 2015 lifted the ban on the practice of santhara, reversing the decision given by Rajasthan H.C. in the initial months of 2015.
I, hence, resonate with you on the bottom line of setting people free, if they are the plaintiff of their plea.
And of course, something which I myself abide by is the dictum which says
'Death is the mother of beauty, which is why we are unmoved by artificial flowers'.
This is not context relative but it somewhere provides an undertone to the idea of people who stand against the practice of euthanasia.
+1 for articulation.
Keep scribbling!
Your replies and comments never fail to invigorate me to read and learn more.❤️
DeleteAnd talking about state interference, The Indian Constitution has always taken Principled Distance as their go to go mantra.
In my opinion, there was a ban because law saw it to be inhumane and precarious. Lifting a ban was another add on to Article 21, giving way to personal liberty.
I hope you concur with me sanjana di.
Keep reading and replying ❤️
Enlightening!
ReplyDeleteThank You Reader ❤️π
Delete"Your blog on euthanasia is so full of great insights."
ReplyDeleteThank You Bud ❤️
DeleteCan doctors claim to have knowledge and experience to say that the disease is incurable and patient is permanently invalid?
ReplyDeleteSudarshan, mostly it's the prognosis report which tells the scope of improvement. And cure of some diseases is still in the pipeline. A doctor is qualified enough to declare a person brain dead or irreparable.
DeleteWhat if medics efforts are combined with self motive(indirectly or directly) or with their family who wants to inherit assets from the death of the person.
ReplyDeleteWell these are exceptional situations, otherwise doctors are highly professional personnels.
DeleteHey.. Right from choice of the topic to the way bits of information and facts are portrayed is very unique. Must say, you're way too professional for your first blog. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. Keep it up :)
ReplyDeleteOh my my, I'm exalted that you liked the blog and it was a happy reading for you. My mission is accomplished. I hope readers keep enjoying.
DeleteKeep reading ♥️♥️
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell put.... Keep it up kortika
ReplyDeleteThank you π
Delete