Euthanasia
Amalesh Honnekeri
“Whose rights will we acknowledge? Whose human dignity will we respect? For whose well-being will we, as a people, assume responsibility?”
– Robert Cassey
Euthanasia. A word that has sparked highly intense debates, with rhetoric being used in abundance. A world that has various legislative bodies encompassing the governments of several countries spanning the globe, engaged in harrowed discussions. A word that has families fighting and falling apart. A word that has taken the world by storm. And what a storm it has been, indeed.
Let us begin by trying to fundamentally understand the nitty-gritty behind the process of Euthanasia. Euthanasia is also known as ‘physician-assisted suicide‘, a term that sparks immediate controversy. Simply put, it is the process via which the life of an individual who is suffering from an unalterable illness, is put to an end by a medical practitioner on the behest of the individual (voluntary euthanasia), or of persons responsible for the individual (involuntary euthanasia). It may be carried out by withholding life support (passive euthanasia) or by using substances that are lethal, to end a person‘s life (active euthanasia).
The legality of euthanasia is a big question mark in the constitutions of several countries, with the procedure being deemed legal in countries like Canada and Belgium. The passive form of the procedure has been given legal status in certain states within the United States of America such as Washington DC and California. However, active euthanasia has been termed unlawful throughout the United States. In India, only passive euthanasia has been given legality, whereas active euthanasia has been clearly deemed illegal.
Critics of the procedure say that Euthanasia essentially takes lives. It places the life of an individual in the hands of a medical practitioner, once the proverbial ‗green signal‘ has been obtained. Claimants of the illegality of Euthanasia base their arguments on the grounds of the fundamental right to live. They say that every individual must live their life till it naturally ends, and inducing an end to life is not only unethical but also immoral.
In counter-argument, those who support Euthanasia resort to citing the fundamental right to dignity – they say that Euthanasia is performed only on terminally ill patients who would rather end their life with dignity instead of suffering. They also believe that by removing the life support of a patient who has nil chances of survival or recovery and instead utilizing that very life support for an individual who can go back to leading a normal life, humanity is essentially being saved.
Every coin has two sides. While ending the life of an individual is fundamentally a crime, one must keep in mind the circumstances. It is essentially an issue of ethics, and that issue arises from the fact that there is no universality in-laws and protocol. There are no well-defined boundaries and demarcations, nor are there any crisp guidelines regarding the legality of Euthanasia.
To begin with, one must address the issue of consent. If a patient is brain-dead and comatose and has not signed any prior agreement to undergo euthanasia, who is responsible for taking the call? There is a dire need for the establishment of a legal mediator who makes these decisions on behalf of the individual – whether it is the next of kin of the individual or a person who has been granted a ‘power of attorney‘ of sorts by the individual.
Secondly, a clear-cut qualification needs to be universally agreed upon regarding who is terminally ill and has no chance of recovering and leading a normal, dignified life again. The stages of metastasis of cancer and the degree of brain damage in a patient are two highly important factors that need to be taken into account, and there needs to be clarity in adjudging whether a patient has a shot at survival or not.
Next, it is imperative to decide on the method of inducing death – whether euthanasia is active or passive. In general, passive euthanasia (removing life support) is given preference but in cases of terminally ill cancer patients or patients with progressive Alzheimer‘s disease, for example, active euthanasia may be carried out with appropriate consent. Furthermore, the lethal substances to be used must be chosen keeping in mind the maintenance of the dignity of the patient throughout the process.
Lastly, it is of utmost momentousness to have a Universal Ethics Committee to tackle all disputes pertaining to Euthanasia, with the committee comprising experts from both the medical as well as legal fraternities. The decisions taken by the Committee should be treated as final and binding and the jury panel of the Committee should follow a system of consensus, in order to eliminate the probability of a biased resolution being passed.
As a resident of Mumbai, India, when I think of Euthanasia and all the debates regarding it, one particular instance that immediately comes to my mind is the case of Aruna Shanbaug. Formerly a nurse at the King Edward Memorial (KEM) Hospital in Mumbai, Aruna Shanbaug was the victim of sexual assault by a ward boy of the same hospital. The attack pushed her into a vegetative state, and she remained in this state for 37 years until her demise in 2015. A journalist, Pinki Virani, moved the Supreme Court of India with a plea to carry out euthanasia on Aruna Shanbaug, in order to end her suffering. After setting up a panel to examine the case, the court rejected the plea due to discrepancies pertaining to who had the power of attorney over Aruna Shanbaug‘s life. However, this led to the landmark judgment wherein passive euthanasia was given the ‘go‘ by the Supreme Court if the KEM Hospital staff so desired. However, they decided not to do so, and Aruna Shanbaug ultimately passed away due to the development of pneumonia in 2015.
The Aruna Shanbaug case brought to light a whole new myriad of questions pertaining to Euthanasia and its efficacy in restoring an individual‘s dignity, as well as its justification in particular situations. It was this case that led to the legalization of passive Euthanasia in India, which is a step (albeit a small one) towards achieving some amount of clarity in cases of patients who have no chance at returning to a normal life.
We live in times of severe humanitarian crises. In a fast-paced world with an ever-increasing population and rapidly rising illness rates, we must establish a link between the right to life and the right to dignity. The issues arising from Euthanasia are delicate and potentially explosive, and achieving clarity by arriving at a solution is the need of the hour. Asking questions and raking up problems are imperative, but only so long as solutions to those problems, too, are put forth. We must keep in mind an individual‘s desire to live with dignity and ensure that as human beings, we remain in touch with humanity.
I wish to live
A life in which
Happiness is abundant
And problems few.
I choose not suffering
Prolong not my pain
I wish to eternally keep my Dignity
Wouldn’t you wish for it, too?
