SC Constitution Bench to decide on `living will’ to die with dignity
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will take up for consideration on Wednesday a petition seeking to declare the execution of a `living will’ of persons, suffering from chronic terminal diseases and likely to go into a permanent vegetative state, to refuse treatment to pave way for their death.
On Tuesday a Bench comprising Chief Justice R.M. Lodha and Justices J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Nariman hearing a petition filed by NGO Common Cause told counsel Prashant Bhushan and Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi that the court would decide whether to issue notice to all the States or refer the matter to the Law Commission of India.
The PIL was referred to Constitution Bench by a three-judge bench. Mr. Bhushan submitted that when a medical expert opined that the person afflicted with the terminal disease had reached a point of no return, then they should be given the right to refuse being put on a life support system to prolong their agony. The issue had been wrongly referred by three judges as one concerning euthanasia, he said and added that it pertained only to execution of living will to die with dignity when there was no hope of survival.
Mr. Rohatgi said the issue had lot of legal, social and moral aspects concerning the humanity as a whole. He said right to die merely because of pain and suffering would not be in the interest of society as it was against public policy. Any change in the law could be brought about only by Parliament, he added and said the ruling in `Aruna Shanbaug’s case’, which upheld the validity of passive euthanasia, was wrong.
CJI told Mr. Bhushan that execution of will would arise only after the death of a person. As the issue concerned all the States, they should be given notice and heard, he added and said the Law Commission’s view also could be sought.
At this juncture Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar brought to the court’s notice that in November 2012 the Law Commission had already submitted a report relating to passive euthanasia and `living will’. The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on Wednesday asking the parties to throw light on the Law Commission’s report.
Can a man on deathbed be forced to live on?
The Supreme Court on Tuesday did not shy away from taking up for adjudication the emotive issue of permitting removal of life support system from a person on the deathbed if doctors unanimously agree that there is no chance of survival.
Petitioner 'Common Cause' has sought judicial sanction for the process where a person, who has 'willed' in sound health and mind that if he ever slips into a vegetative state in future and doctors feel that he has zero chance of survival, he should not be kept alive with the help of a ventilator.
A five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justices J S Khehar, J Chelameswar, A K Sikri and R F Nariman was willing to refer the matter to the Law Commission of India for gathering expert opinion and public view before giving its recommendation to the Centre.
But solicitor general Ranjit Kumar pointed out to the court that the commission, by its 241st report submitted to the government on August 11, 2012, had given a draft — Medical Treatment of Terminally-ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) — which did not agree with the concept of 'living will'.
The commission, after the apex court judgment in Aruna Shanbaug case in 2011, had reversed its earlier opinion and recommended medically guided passive euthanasia for terminally ill patients after putting in place a series of safeguards.
However, in the recommended draft bill, the commission had said, "Every advance medical directive (called living will) or medical power-of-attorney executed by a person shall be void and of no effect and shall not be binding on any medical practitioner."
In 1994, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in P Rathinam vs Union of India had struck down Section 309 of IPC (attempt to suicide) as unconstitutional, saying right to live with dignity allowed the person to die with dignity.
However, a constitution bench of the apex court in 1996 in Gian Kaur's case reversed the 1994 decision saying right to life did not include right to die. However, it had sparked a debate on passive euthanasia by observing that it could be permitted only if the legislature enacted a law authorizing it.
The March 7, 2011 verdict in Aruna Shanbaug's case relied on observations in Gian Kaur's case to permit passive euthanasia. This was followed by Law Commission's recommendations.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said the issue before the court in Gian Kaur case was whether suicide was legally permissible and the observations relating to euthanasia were wrongly made. "It is a complicated, emotive, socially sensitive and legally intertwined issue that needs to be examined carefully on the touchstones of Constitution," he said.
The AG said such a huge issue could not have been decided by the apex court in Aruna Shanbaug's case just by hearing the Union government and a party concerned. The bench appeared to agree with the suggestion for a wider debate and told the NGO's counsel Prashant Bhushan that it would surely need response from state governments and concerned players.
The court too had its doubt whether any person could be legally entitled to execute a will for deciding the manner in which he should die. "Would it not amount to an indirect suicide? Would the doctor advising removal of life support system be not liable for abetting suicide," the AG asked.
The bench asked Bhushan to inform the court about the course of action to be adopted on this issue - whether the issue be referred to a larger bench of seven or nine judges or seek response from the states.
Petitioner 'Common Cause' has sought judicial sanction for the process where a person, who has 'willed' in sound health and mind that if he ever slips into a vegetative state in future and doctors feel that he has zero chance of survival, he should not be kept alive with the help of a ventilator.
A five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justices J S Khehar, J Chelameswar, A K Sikri and R F Nariman was willing to refer the matter to the Law Commission of India for gathering expert opinion and public view before giving its recommendation to the Centre.
But solicitor general Ranjit Kumar pointed out to the court that the commission, by its 241st report submitted to the government on August 11, 2012, had given a draft — Medical Treatment of Terminally-ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) — which did not agree with the concept of 'living will'.
The commission, after the apex court judgment in Aruna Shanbaug case in 2011, had reversed its earlier opinion and recommended medically guided passive euthanasia for terminally ill patients after putting in place a series of safeguards.
However, in the recommended draft bill, the commission had said, "Every advance medical directive (called living will) or medical power-of-attorney executed by a person shall be void and of no effect and shall not be binding on any medical practitioner."
In 1994, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court in P Rathinam vs Union of India had struck down Section 309 of IPC (attempt to suicide) as unconstitutional, saying right to live with dignity allowed the person to die with dignity.
However, a constitution bench of the apex court in 1996 in Gian Kaur's case reversed the 1994 decision saying right to life did not include right to die. However, it had sparked a debate on passive euthanasia by observing that it could be permitted only if the legislature enacted a law authorizing it.
The March 7, 2011 verdict in Aruna Shanbaug's case relied on observations in Gian Kaur's case to permit passive euthanasia. This was followed by Law Commission's recommendations.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said the issue before the court in Gian Kaur case was whether suicide was legally permissible and the observations relating to euthanasia were wrongly made. "It is a complicated, emotive, socially sensitive and legally intertwined issue that needs to be examined carefully on the touchstones of Constitution," he said.
The AG said such a huge issue could not have been decided by the apex court in Aruna Shanbaug's case just by hearing the Union government and a party concerned. The bench appeared to agree with the suggestion for a wider debate and told the NGO's counsel Prashant Bhushan that it would surely need response from state governments and concerned players.
The court too had its doubt whether any person could be legally entitled to execute a will for deciding the manner in which he should die. "Would it not amount to an indirect suicide? Would the doctor advising removal of life support system be not liable for abetting suicide," the AG asked.
The bench asked Bhushan to inform the court about the course of action to be adopted on this issue - whether the issue be referred to a larger bench of seven or nine judges or seek response from the states.
Court hearing on right to die
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will on Wednesday take up for consideration a petition seeking to allow a person suffering from chronic terminal diseases and likely to go into a permanent vegetative state to refuse treatment and pave the way for their death.
On Tuesday, a Bench comprising Chief Justice R.M. Lodha and Justices J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Nariman, hearing a petition filed by NGO Common Cause, told counsel Prashant Bhushan and Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi that the court would decide whether to issue a notice to all States or refer the matter to the Law Commission of India.
The Public Interest Litigation petition was referred to the Constitution Bench by a three-judge Bench. Mr. Bhushan submitted that when a medical expert opined that a person afflicted with a terminal disease had reached a point of no return, then he/she should be given the right to refuse being put on a life support system to prolong the agony. The issue had been wrongly referred by three-judges as one concerning euthanasia. It pertained only to execution of living will to die with dignity when there was no hope of survival.
Mr. Rohatgi said there were legal, social and moral aspects to the issue, concerning humanity as a whole.
SWISS JAB FOR LAST RIGHT@ Rs. 7 LAKH
India Should Ask If Its Law Reflects Its Ancient, Enlightened Outlook On Death'
Ludwig A Minelli, a Swiss lawyer and human rights activist and founder of Dignitas, a Zurich-based organization that helps people end their lives. The 81-year-old advocate of the right-to-die movement describes his organization as one fighting to implement the “last human right“. Extracts from an interview with Rema Nagarajan Can an Indian become a member of Dignitas?
Everybody everywhere can join Dignitas.
To join Dignitas, you send a declaration of membership. Some members just sup Can an Indian become a member of Dignitas? Everybody everywhere can join Dignitas.To join Dignitas, you send a declaration of membership. Some members just support us. Others want to start the process of preparing an assisted suicide; they have to send an application with a medical file and curriculum vitae.
Does a person have to prove terminal-illness or suffering to get assistance? Swiss law has no detailed regulations or specified law. But we must find a physician willing to write the lethal prescription. Whether or not a physician is entitled to write a prescription for “healthy” people is still controversial; we are still trying to get a court decision on this issue. The European Court of Human Rights told Switzerland in its decision Gross v. Switzerland that doctors do not know exactly whether or not they are entitled to write prescriptions for lethal medicaments if somebody is not terminally ill.The basis of our activity is the opposite of Swiss Criminal Code’s Article 115 that says who abets suicide from a selfish motive will be punished. As we act without selfish motives, there is no crime.
“provisional green light“), a fee to have an assisted suicide, fee for physicians (study file, make proposals if alternatives seem possible, two consultations, make reports for authorities), fees for funeral services including cremation and handling the death case through Dignitas instead of family members. Total cost about 10,500 CHF (Rs 7 lakh+).
India's legal system doesn't allow assisted death. Could Dignitas be an option for Indians?
Indian law reflects colonial law prior to India’s legal system doesn’t allow assisted death. Could Dignitas be an option for Indians? Indian law reflects colonial law prior to the English Suicide Law (1961).India should ask whether its law reflects former Indian philosophy that had a more enlightened outlook on death. There are methods still known in India on how to hasten death. Dignitas may be an option but travel costs to Switzerland are high, especially as we encourage family to be with members when they come.
Could freely available end-of-life information lead to more suicide attempts? It’s a mistake to think abolishing the taboo of suicide would lead to more suicides.Never forget that for one suicide, you’ll count up to 49 failed suicide attempts.
Opening the door to assisted suicide with thorough discussions will lead to reduction of suicide attempts. People should be able to discuss suicidical ideas with relatives, friends and physicians, without being put in psychiatric institutions where they lose freedom, self-respect and self-responsibility. We’ve found that the experience of opening the “exit door” (by a “provisional green light”) helps people find a new way of thinking as they again have a chance to make a choice (whether to live on or opt for suicide). Many chose to live, because they know they have the option of the exit door. A considerable number of members who’ve received the “provisional green light” never do call us.
Everybody everywhere can join Dignitas.
To join Dignitas, you send a declaration of membership. Some members just sup Can an Indian become a member of Dignitas? Everybody everywhere can join Dignitas.To join Dignitas, you send a declaration of membership. Some members just support us. Others want to start the process of preparing an assisted suicide; they have to send an application with a medical file and curriculum vitae.
Does a person have to prove terminal-illness or suffering to get assistance? Swiss law has no detailed regulations or specified law. But we must find a physician willing to write the lethal prescription. Whether or not a physician is entitled to write a prescription for “healthy” people is still controversial; we are still trying to get a court decision on this issue. The European Court of Human Rights told Switzerland in its decision Gross v. Switzerland that doctors do not know exactly whether or not they are entitled to write prescriptions for lethal medicaments if somebody is not terminally ill.The basis of our activity is the opposite of Swiss Criminal Code’s Article 115 that says who abets suicide from a selfish motive will be punished. As we act without selfish motives, there is no crime.
“provisional green light“), a fee to have an assisted suicide, fee for physicians (study file, make proposals if alternatives seem possible, two consultations, make reports for authorities), fees for funeral services including cremation and handling the death case through Dignitas instead of family members. Total cost about 10,500 CHF (Rs 7 lakh+).
India's legal system doesn't allow assisted death. Could Dignitas be an option for Indians?
Indian law reflects colonial law prior to India’s legal system doesn’t allow assisted death. Could Dignitas be an option for Indians? Indian law reflects colonial law prior to the English Suicide Law (1961).India should ask whether its law reflects former Indian philosophy that had a more enlightened outlook on death. There are methods still known in India on how to hasten death. Dignitas may be an option but travel costs to Switzerland are high, especially as we encourage family to be with members when they come.
Could freely available end-of-life information lead to more suicide attempts? It’s a mistake to think abolishing the taboo of suicide would lead to more suicides.Never forget that for one suicide, you’ll count up to 49 failed suicide attempts.
Opening the door to assisted suicide with thorough discussions will lead to reduction of suicide attempts. People should be able to discuss suicidical ideas with relatives, friends and physicians, without being put in psychiatric institutions where they lose freedom, self-respect and self-responsibility. We’ve found that the experience of opening the “exit door” (by a “provisional green light”) helps people find a new way of thinking as they again have a chance to make a choice (whether to live on or opt for suicide). Many chose to live, because they know they have the option of the exit door. A considerable number of members who’ve received the “provisional green light” never do call us.
Indian culture had place for voluntary death
Rema.Nagarajan@timesgroup.com
|
Even as SC has revived the debate on legalizing passive euthanasia, several petitioners who had earlier petitioned courts to be granted the right to die have pointed out that Indian laws are based on the Anglo-Saxon judicial system and Western jurisprudence. They don’t take into account the influence of Indian customs and cultural practices on society and people’s thinking.In many ancient civilizations, including India, voluntary death was accepted. The Mahabharata refers to the Pandavas and Draupadi giving up their kingdom and embarking on mahaprasthana (the great departure) to meet death. The notion of kashi yatra and mahaprasthana must be understood in this sense one petition said, adding that the concepts of samadhi and nirvana too form part of the heritage of Indian thinking. Merely because these words don’t exist in the English dictionary doesn’t mean they don’t exist for the people of India, argued the proponents of euthanasia.
For instance, the Manusmriti says:
“When a householder sees he’s wrinkled and grey, and when he sees the children of his children, he should take himself to the wilderness. The householder should set out in a north-easterly direction and walk straight ahead, diligently engaged in consuming nothing but water and air, until the body collapses.” Petitions filed earlier on the subject had innumerable references from Indian scriptures, which indicated that the practice of voluntarily opting for death at a particular stage in life was integral to Indian traditions and a well accepted one, unlike in the West. In modern times, the most wellknown example is of freedom fighter and spiritual teacher Acharya Vinoba Bhave who, when he fell ill in 1982, decided to end his life and refused to accept any food or medicine during his last days. He starved himself and died on November 15, 1982.Among Shwetambara Jains voluntary death by giving up food and drink and then allowing themselves to die peacefully is considered highly meritorious. There have been several instances of Jains resorting to this practice known as santhara or sallekhana.
For instance, the Manusmriti says:
“When a householder sees he’s wrinkled and grey, and when he sees the children of his children, he should take himself to the wilderness. The householder should set out in a north-easterly direction and walk straight ahead, diligently engaged in consuming nothing but water and air, until the body collapses.” Petitions filed earlier on the subject had innumerable references from Indian scriptures, which indicated that the practice of voluntarily opting for death at a particular stage in life was integral to Indian traditions and a well accepted one, unlike in the West. In modern times, the most wellknown example is of freedom fighter and spiritual teacher Acharya Vinoba Bhave who, when he fell ill in 1982, decided to end his life and refused to accept any food or medicine during his last days. He starved himself and died on November 15, 1982.Among Shwetambara Jains voluntary death by giving up food and drink and then allowing themselves to die peacefully is considered highly meritorious. There have been several instances of Jains resorting to this practice known as santhara or sallekhana.
PROXY EUTHANASIA COMMON IN INDIA
DurgeshNandan.Jha@timesgroup.com
|
New Delhi:
|
Terminally-Ill Often Taken Off Life Support With Kin Consent
Law or no law, euthanasia in a surrogate form is practised in India. Instances of doctors scaling down medical intervention where patients have no chance of recovery aren't unheard of. Such decisions are taken only after families are convinced they exhausted all options. The terminally-ill are allowed to sink till they breathe their last.In some cases, the deescalation is so sharp that it resembles passive euthanasia -withdrawing life support to patients in a permanentlyvegetative state. The two key inputs needed to sustain life in the terminally-ill are ventilator support to help respiration and medicines to maintain blood pressure. The intensity of both is either reduced or withdrawn to allow life to ebb away . Doctors say giving this practice a legal framework is important to ensure death with dignity .
“Every week, we get at least three to four requests from families for discontinuation of treatment to kin -terminally-ill or in a vegetative state. Loss of hope of recovery is the main cause. Sometimes it's because families can't afford the treatment,“ says Dr Sumit Ray , vice-chairperson, critical care medicine at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. In cases where there's zero chance of recovery or improvement in quality of life the `end-of-life care' approach is adopted on the family's request.
Dr Deepak Agarwal, senior neurosurgeon at AIIMS trauma centre, says many families dump their kin in hospital and leave when they're told there's no scope of recovery . “Such people are mostly poor. I recall a poor woman whose husband had suffered a terrible spinal cord injury sending him into a vegetative state. She didn't have the money to get him treated, left him at the hospital and focused on finding a way to feed her children,“ he says.
Shabnam, whose father died after prolonged illness, says: “My father was declared brain dead. Doctors said even if he came off the ventilator -which was virtually impossible -his vision, respiration and limb movements were gone for good. We as a family decided to go one step further with the medication and then stop. What we decided that day was in a way euthanasia.“
But, there are doctors who oppose euthanasia. “We should be thinking of ways to save more lives. Euthanasia is not an option. There can't be greater service to humanity than giving quality palliative care to the terminally-ill,“ said Dr Sushma Bhatnagar, head of pain and palliative care at AIIMS' Cancer Centre.
“Every week, we get at least three to four requests from families for discontinuation of treatment to kin -terminally-ill or in a vegetative state. Loss of hope of recovery is the main cause. Sometimes it's because families can't afford the treatment,“ says Dr Sumit Ray , vice-chairperson, critical care medicine at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. In cases where there's zero chance of recovery or improvement in quality of life the `end-of-life care' approach is adopted on the family's request.
Dr Deepak Agarwal, senior neurosurgeon at AIIMS trauma centre, says many families dump their kin in hospital and leave when they're told there's no scope of recovery . “Such people are mostly poor. I recall a poor woman whose husband had suffered a terrible spinal cord injury sending him into a vegetative state. She didn't have the money to get him treated, left him at the hospital and focused on finding a way to feed her children,“ he says.
Shabnam, whose father died after prolonged illness, says: “My father was declared brain dead. Doctors said even if he came off the ventilator -which was virtually impossible -his vision, respiration and limb movements were gone for good. We as a family decided to go one step further with the medication and then stop. What we decided that day was in a way euthanasia.“
But, there are doctors who oppose euthanasia. “We should be thinking of ways to save more lives. Euthanasia is not an option. There can't be greater service to humanity than giving quality palliative care to the terminally-ill,“ said Dr Sushma Bhatnagar, head of pain and palliative care at AIIMS' Cancer Centre.
Allow dignified exit, but with strict safeguards
To force a person to be kept alive in a vegetative state when medical opinion is as certain as can be that there is no chance of recovery is cruel both on the person and on his or her family and friends. The law must, therefore, clearly allow for euthanasia -both active and passive -in such situations.
While passive euthanasia is limited to withdrawing life support, active euthanasia goes a step further by assisting in a terminally ill patient's death (through, say ,a painless injection). There must, however, be very strict safeguards to ensure that the provision is not misused by people who may benefit from the death of the patient.The Supreme Court, in Aruna Shanbaug's case in 2011, laid down guidelines to ensure this in cases of passive euthanasia. They include approval by a twojudge bench of the high court concerned, which in turn must take into account the findings of a three-member panel of eminent doctors it sets up before it decides on the matter. (However, the government is now seeking to question the legality of even passive euthanasia before a larger bench.) The same sort of safeguards could apply to cases of active euthanasia as well (where a patient is terminally ill and suffering greatly, but is not on life support). For the system to be meaningful, there must of course be a deadline within which the court must approve or reject the plea. We would suggest a period of 90 days.
Many countries in the world recognize that it is humane to allow people to choose to die in specific situations. India itself has a tradition that sanctifies various forms of “ichhaa mrityu“, or death by choice. Unlike in the West, taking your own life has historically not been viewed as an absolute taboo in India. If we accept that somebody can consciously choose to die, there is nothing wrong about an informed decision being made for that person in his best interests when he is in a persistent vegetative state. In actual practice many families have had to take the painful decision to withdraw life support systems, either because they wish to end the patient's suffering or simply because they can no longer afford it.
The Supreme Court has in the past acknowledged that the right to dignity in life also extends to the right to a dignified death, though that ruling applied this principle only to `natural death'.
It is time now to extend it further and adjust the law to the reality and to a more modern moral sensibility by allowing people to choose to die peacefully .
This paper has in the past campaigned in favour of passive euthanasia and decriminalization of attempted suicide. Besides allowing passive euthanasia, the Supreme Court recommended in the Aruna Shanbaug case that the provision penalizing attempt to suicide should be deleted by Parliament. We believe that the time has come not only to do away with Section 309 IPC but also to enable active euthanasia.
While passive euthanasia is limited to withdrawing life support, active euthanasia goes a step further by assisting in a terminally ill patient's death (through, say ,a painless injection). There must, however, be very strict safeguards to ensure that the provision is not misused by people who may benefit from the death of the patient.The Supreme Court, in Aruna Shanbaug's case in 2011, laid down guidelines to ensure this in cases of passive euthanasia. They include approval by a twojudge bench of the high court concerned, which in turn must take into account the findings of a three-member panel of eminent doctors it sets up before it decides on the matter. (However, the government is now seeking to question the legality of even passive euthanasia before a larger bench.) The same sort of safeguards could apply to cases of active euthanasia as well (where a patient is terminally ill and suffering greatly, but is not on life support). For the system to be meaningful, there must of course be a deadline within which the court must approve or reject the plea. We would suggest a period of 90 days.
Many countries in the world recognize that it is humane to allow people to choose to die in specific situations. India itself has a tradition that sanctifies various forms of “ichhaa mrityu“, or death by choice. Unlike in the West, taking your own life has historically not been viewed as an absolute taboo in India. If we accept that somebody can consciously choose to die, there is nothing wrong about an informed decision being made for that person in his best interests when he is in a persistent vegetative state. In actual practice many families have had to take the painful decision to withdraw life support systems, either because they wish to end the patient's suffering or simply because they can no longer afford it.
The Supreme Court has in the past acknowledged that the right to dignity in life also extends to the right to a dignified death, though that ruling applied this principle only to `natural death'.
It is time now to extend it further and adjust the law to the reality and to a more modern moral sensibility by allowing people to choose to die peacefully .
This paper has in the past campaigned in favour of passive euthanasia and decriminalization of attempted suicide. Besides allowing passive euthanasia, the Supreme Court recommended in the Aruna Shanbaug case that the provision penalizing attempt to suicide should be deleted by Parliament. We believe that the time has come not only to do away with Section 309 IPC but also to enable active euthanasia.
Dying With Dignity
One's right to life and liberty must include the right to terminate one's life
In the aging basket of colonial era laws that are terribly out of sync with modern Indian reality, a particularly inhumane one makes it illegal for a citizen to take his or her own life. For patients who are terminally ill or in unrelenting pain or in an irreversible vegetative state, this means they must bear what they find unbearable and doctors declare avoidable. This applies even to adults who have seriously considered the matter in advance and formulated a living will putting down in black and white their wishes regarding life-prolonging medical treatments.Judiciary has been inching towards allowing passive euthanasia, where the means of prolonging a patient's life are withdrawn say by withdrawing ventilator support. But the process remains enmeshed in such a legal imbroglio that ordinary patients can hardly hope to benefit from it. Active euthanasia, which entails inducing death by say lethal injections, remains beyond the reach of even those patients who have written the most moving of living wills pleading for it. Unfortunately government remains obdurate on rejecting euthanasia in all its forms. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi keeps repeating that attempting suicide is a criminal offence. So while patients with sufficient resources derive hope from foreign destinations where the `last human right' is respected, the rest must remain trapped in hell.
Government must stop clinging to a colonial law that reflects neither traditional Indian philosophy nor modern Indian reality . Advances in medical technology mean more and more people are ending their lives in hospitals, and many of them don't want to remain in limbo forever. As for our national heritage, concepts like samadhi, nirvana and santhara point to how the practice of voluntarily opting for death at a particular stage in life was well accepted in India even when it wasn't by the Anglo-Saxon judicial system and western jurisprudence. Gandhi himself wrote sympathetically about circumstances in which humanity demanded that agony should be ended by ending life itself.
Fact is euthanasia happens. But while it remains illegal, it remains underground. Legalising it would help institute reliable safeguards against malpractices, as also a more robust system of medical and psychiatric support. Finally , remember democracy itself revolves around the right to self-determination. It's undemocratic to deny patients the right to determine what will happen to their body . Especially when they make this determination compos mentis, with realistic and stoic resolution to be or not to be.
Government must stop clinging to a colonial law that reflects neither traditional Indian philosophy nor modern Indian reality . Advances in medical technology mean more and more people are ending their lives in hospitals, and many of them don't want to remain in limbo forever. As for our national heritage, concepts like samadhi, nirvana and santhara point to how the practice of voluntarily opting for death at a particular stage in life was well accepted in India even when it wasn't by the Anglo-Saxon judicial system and western jurisprudence. Gandhi himself wrote sympathetically about circumstances in which humanity demanded that agony should be ended by ending life itself.
Fact is euthanasia happens. But while it remains illegal, it remains underground. Legalising it would help institute reliable safeguards against malpractices, as also a more robust system of medical and psychiatric support. Finally , remember democracy itself revolves around the right to self-determination. It's undemocratic to deny patients the right to determine what will happen to their body . Especially when they make this determination compos mentis, with realistic and stoic resolution to be or not to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment