The Supreme Court’s rejection of the petition for mercy killing of Aruna Shanbaug, who has been in a “persistent vegetative state” for the past 37 years, comes as no surprise. There is no law to allow it. The surprise is that the apex court has permitted passive euthanasia under certain conditions supervised by a high court. The conditions require the high court to seek the opinion of three eminent doctors as well as listen to the government and close relatives of the terminally ill patient. Under passive euthanasia the life support system of a terminally ill patient is withdrawn, while under active euthanasia the patient is given a lethal injection by a doctor.
During the arguments Attorney General G.E Vahanvati had contended that the withdrawal of food to the victim “will be a cruel, inhuman and intolerant approach unknown and contrary to Indian laws”. Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra weighed the possibility of misuse of euthanasia. Doctors and relatives could collude to grab the victim’s property. Hence, the involvement of a high court and the government. The court ruling may trigger a debate on the issue. Doctors here already practise euthanasia as often they discharge incurable patients to let them die at home and make space for other needy patients whose life could be saved. A law is yet to take note of such realties.
Euthanasia, also called assisted suicide, has been debated worldwide. Only a small number of countries permit it: Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and Switzerland in Europe, Thailand in Asia and the two US states of Washington and Oregon. Australia and the UK have toyed with the idea but dropped it due to opposition from the beleivers. Pope John Paul II dubbed it “a crime that no human law can claim to legitimize”. However, support for mercy killing is growing, especially in Europe. Polls in the UK and France have shown up to 80 per cent support for a law to shorten life if illness is terminal and causes intolerable suffering.
During the arguments Attorney General G.E Vahanvati had contended that the withdrawal of food to the victim “will be a cruel, inhuman and intolerant approach unknown and contrary to Indian laws”. Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra weighed the possibility of misuse of euthanasia. Doctors and relatives could collude to grab the victim’s property. Hence, the involvement of a high court and the government. The court ruling may trigger a debate on the issue. Doctors here already practise euthanasia as often they discharge incurable patients to let them die at home and make space for other needy patients whose life could be saved. A law is yet to take note of such realties.
Euthanasia, also called assisted suicide, has been debated worldwide. Only a small number of countries permit it: Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and Switzerland in Europe, Thailand in Asia and the two US states of Washington and Oregon. Australia and the UK have toyed with the idea but dropped it due to opposition from the beleivers. Pope John Paul II dubbed it “a crime that no human law can claim to legitimize”. However, support for mercy killing is growing, especially in Europe. Polls in the UK and France have shown up to 80 per cent support for a law to shorten life if illness is terminal and causes intolerable suffering.
No comments:
Post a Comment