Euthanasia should be given legal sanction
With the Supreme Court demonstrating its willingness to adjudicate on the issue of euthanasia, the highly controversial matter has been yet again tossed in the forefront. While the Government's stand is that it does not “in principle” support euthanasia in any form, there are organisations such as Common Cause — the petitioner on whose plea the apex court has issued notices to States and Union Territories seeking their views on the subject — which maintain that if a person has in his ‘living will’, given assent to euthanasia, he cannot be deprived if and when circumstances arise. Although the Government has maintained that Parliament has the right to take a final call, the petitioner has rightly pointed out that lawmakers have for years failed to firm up their position. The two aspects that form the core of the controversy are legal and humane. Passive euthanasia is permitted by law, but only under strict conditions. It must be recalled that while the apex court had agreed to passive euthanasia, it was not moved enough by the strong plea in favour of euthanasia in the well-documented Aruna Shanbaug case in March 2011. Thus, as of the moment, even passive euthanasia has remained a virtual non-starter. The other legal aspect has to do with the fresh issue Common Cause has raised — that of a demand for euthanasia in a person's living will. As Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi admitted to the court, this is “virgin territory”. The court needs to examine the validity of living wills which have a provision to seek euthanasia. Two years ago, the law Commission had opined that living wills were prone to abuse. What also needs to be added is the new angle that further legally complicates the already tangled issue. For years, courts and lawmakers have been grappling with the dilemma of whether the ‘right to live' does not automatically give a person the ‘right to die with dignity' as well. What muddies the water further is the issue of suicide: Both an attempt to and an abetment of, suicide, are offences under Sections of the Indian Penal Code. Interestingly, while three years ago, the Supreme Court had mooted the idea of de-criminalisation of attempt to suicide, the status quo remains. So, for now, there is no need to confuse between the ‘right to die' in irreversible medical circumstances and the ‘right to commit suicide'. There is enough mess already without mixing up the two.
The ‘humane' factor has propelled the arguments of both pro- and anti-euthanasia camps. The second believes that the medical fraternity and society as a whole cannot wash its hands of the life of a person simply because that person is unable to conduct a normal life. If those attending to such a person, either in the hospital or in homes, are willing to take care, why should others seek mercy killingIJ On the other hand, those who favour euthanasia, point to the indignity the suffering person (and/or his or her family) goes through in a situation where medicine has given up on the recovery of the patient, and the latter is doomed to die a slow and often painful death. There is merit in this contention. Euthanasia is a humane and dignified way to end suffering. Whether the initiative comes from the apex court or from the legislature, is a subject of academic debate.
