To be or not to be is the question. Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them all.
Euthanasia or mercy killing or assisted dying, sobriquet it to any nomenclature, there can never be a right way to do a wrong. Isn’t birth a suffering? Isn’t old age a suffering? Isn’t disease a suffering? Isn’t sorrow and misery a suffering? Isn’t being afflicted with loathsome things a suffering? Isn’t poverty a suffering? Isn’t corruption a suffering? Isn’t war a suffering? Isn’t loss of that which we love and failure in that which we longed for a suffering? Do all these whirls of suffering tantamount to ending ones life? Mankind today stands at the crossroads of euthanasia.
Mercy killing has entered a legal and ethical quagmire. While we legalize abortion for population control or award capital punishment or hang Saddam Hussain for betterment of the society at large contrary to it we also condemn foetecide or a pogrom or a rejigged cold blood murder to a case of encounter, for that matter. As man can never be a creator of life similarly man can also never be an usurper to end one. Killing or mercy killing is annihilation of a set paradigm.
However, there are many arguments in favor of euthanasia. In this context Charles Colton says- “Death is the liberator of him whom freedom can not release, physician of him whom medicine can not cure and comforter of him whom time can not console”. As they proselytize, it is not morally right to leave somebody in pain and consequently their near and dear ones too. Some legal proponents also argue that quality of life is as important as the life itself, which is a Fundamental Right. Nevertheless, these arguments need to be seen with a different lens. Suffering and pain in this world are diverse and varied in extent. If one is guided by such utilitarian way of life, one may end up justifying euthanasia today and ending lives of those who can not make any contribution to the society, tomorrow. In this context it is noteworthy that in The Netherlands where euthanasia and such laws were legalized and became a cult has ended up losing a quarter of its population and adversely affecting the birthrate. Those who contend legalizing euthanasia on the premise of right to dignified life as a fundamental right needs to revisit the provisions of the constitution, where suicide is also considered as a crime. So, how can assisted suicide be legally justified? All these interpretations do not hold water and is as untenable as will-o’-of-the wisp. In this regard one of the recent Supreme Court verdict on the plea of mercy killing of one Aruna Shanbaug needs examination.
Aruna Shanbaug a nurse in KEM hospital, Mumbai on the fateful night of 27 November 1973 was sodomised and strangulated by a ward boy. Strangulation led to blockage of oxygen supply to her brain which in turn led her to an irrecoverable stage according to the doctors. Since then she has been languishing in the hospital. Her family members took care of her for a few years hoping that she would recover but later abandoned her when there seemed no beacon of recovery. Since then the distaff side of hospital staff has been taking care of her. Recently, a journalist who visited Aruna a couple of times was motivated to write a book on her. She later also filed a petition in court for assisted dying of Aruna. This was opposed tooth and nail by the hospital staff, which has been taking care of Aruna since the incident. March 7, 2011 world celebrated hundred years of International Women’s Day, on this day Supreme Court ruled that as the hospital staff has been taking care of Aruna for the last 37 years, so they are her family member and only they can opine in this regard not someone who has visited her a couple of times in last few months and is writing a book on her. There is another vital aspect in this case which needs ratiocination: Aruna enjoys food when she likes it and bites when she doesn’t or is full; she also seems to enjoy music and responds by making a unique sound. Those who have been taking care of her understand these signals. So, classifying her to be in ‘Vegetative State’ is also not right.
Albeit the seminal judgment was in favor of Aruna and the hospital staff but the judgment per se has one major lacuna. The two judge bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra held that legalizing euthanasia can lead to opening a can of worms and misuse by certain illicit elements of the society. However, in an earlier judgment, Supreme Court rejected centre’s plea to scrape MPLAD scheme as central government contended that it was being misused by some. Supreme Court also ruled that appropriate arrangements should be made to check such misuse and it is the duty of executive to ensure this. Moreover, is it not true that issue of Reservation has opened a Pandora’s Box and certain sections of society are resorting to unconstitutional means to gain undue advantage of the provision? Isn’t there an alarming issue of pilferage in Public Distribution System? Do these types of misuse deter the legislators or judiciary to make laws for the underprivileged? Is it not the duty of executive to keep foolproof arrangements in place? Ipso facto, isn’t Supreme Court verdict in Aruna’s case ludicrous? Nonetheless, the larger question of legitimizing euthanasia still remains debatable for mankind.
Any attempt to tinker with the natural process has always boomeranged. Putting two and two together, euthanasia may seem to be utilitarian but is ultra vires ethically. It is rightly said in this regard-
“First our pleasures die then our hopes die then our fears die- and when all these are dead, the debt is due. Dust claims dust and we die too”.
No comments:
Post a Comment