Euthanasia: Mercy or Murder?

I. Introduction

The method of purposely ending one’s own life to relieve pain or suffering. It is a Greek word that breakdowns as:

.eu, goodly or well+ Thanos, death=the good death.

What is euthanasia?

"Painless inducement of a quick death". Euthanasia is known as assisted suicide, physician-assisted suicide, and more loosely termed mercy killing. It means to take an action deliberate action with the expression of the intention of ending a life to relieve intractable (persistent, unstoppable)suffering. The word euthanasia cuts many aspects such as social, legal, spiritual, health, social, religious, and economic. Many points come forward by supporters and opposers of euthanasia. The objective is to discuss the subject of euthanasia from the medical and human rights perspective given the background of the recent Supreme Court judgment. Committing suicide or attempting to commit suicide was a criminal offense in India.

In,1994 section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was challenged in the Supreme Court. Further Supreme Court passed a judgment stating that IPC sec 309 is unconstitutional, under Article 21 (Right to life) of the constitution in a landmark judgment. In 1996, a case of a suicide attempt came in front of the Supreme court. After being convicted by the high court the accused appealed to the Supreme Court that the right to die be included in Article 21 of the constitution and any person trying to commit suicide by anyone is assisting the enforcement of the fundamental right under Article 21 and so the punishment in violation of Article 21. This made Supreme Court reconsider the decision on the right to die. Further Supreme Court came out with a final judgment that Article 21 of the constitution does not include the right to die. Further Supreme court came with clarification on the difference between committing suicide(IPC sec 306) and an attempt of suicide(IPC sec 309). It has been stated that a person tries to commit suicide under depression and needs to be helped rather than punished. So the Supreme Court recommended Parliament deletes Article 309 from IPC.

II. Argument against euthanasia

There are numerous amount of people who came forward with many points against euthanasia. Mainly people practice euthanasia because of depression, and schizophrenia, and there are ways to come out of these such as Palliative care. Even there are non-governmental organizations that help out people suffering from euthanasia. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his liberty except in some mentioned circumstances.

Management of health care: Many people want to die without even taking proper health care treatment. Sometimes people when hearing “nothing can be done” lose hope, although there can be little one, they go into depression and if euthanasia becomes legal they think to go for it. Although the state must protect life and provide treatment and if euthanasia becomes legal the government would refuse to invest in health.

Euthanasia is the rejection of the importance of the life that everyone has been blessed with: At the end of the year people come out with hundred of problems and wanted to give up and die and undoubtedly this is nowhere a solution. People who are in favor of euthanasia often say that the constitution has given permission to take a human life in some circumstances but those circumstances are either self-defense or some is found culprit, where either someone’s life is saved or someone is getting justice, but here only life is taken without any crime.

Malafide intention: In today’s world where people are decreasing their morality and justice, euthanasia can be misused by their families for their benefit. In the Supreme court judgment, this issue was raised.

Negative impact on society: The suicide rate in this world is already at a dangerously high level, in such conditions if euthanasia and assisted suicide is legalized then people ending their life would increase on a mass scale. Legalizing euthanasia will hurt society especially teenagers as they would find alternative solutions to all their problems by ending their life in a legal way which anyhow is incorrect.

Research has revealed that no. People requesting euthanasia are at a very high level in which depression, and illness is a major issue. Even there is a most controversial landmark case in India that practiced euthanasia. But all they need is palliative care, time to come out from illness, and a little hope which will take life again to a better path. After all such negative situations, people are still blessed with life which at any cost should not be wasted.

III. The Counter-argument For euthanasia

The burden on family: Euthanasia supporters usually say that people who are suffering from an incurable disease or severe mental illness should be allowed to die with dignity legally. The caregiver has a huge burden in every aspect such as financial, mental, social, time, and physical. So it’s best that without being a burden on anyone they legally practice euthanasia.

Encouraging organ transplantation: Those people who practice euthanasia can donate their organs to needy ones. Not just one life being relieved with another life being saved too.

Expensive treatment: Sometimes a simple family treatment goes so expensive that they prefer euthanasia over treatment for that particular disease. They try to save their family from debt and find it better to die with dignity instead of dying slowly every day and provide relief to themselves and their family too.

Euthanasia provides a person and their family free from incurable pain. There is a landmark case where euthanasia relieved the person.

IV. Legalization of euthanasia in India

Supreme Court decision:

When Pinki Virani’s plea for euthanasia of her friend Aruna Shanbaug, the court introduces certain guidelines for passive euthanasia. According to these guidelines, passive euthanasia involves the withdrawal of treatment or food that would allow the patient to live. In a debate the following guidelines were laid down by India’s Minister of law and Justice, Verrappa Moily-

1. A decision has to be taken to discontinue life support either by the parents or the spouse or other close relatives or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be taken bonafide in the best interest of the patient.

Even if a decision is taken by the near relatives or doctors or next friend to withdraw life support, such a decision requires the presence of two witnesses and countersigned by a first-class judicial magistrate, and should also be approved by a medical board set up by the hospital. While hearing a PIL filed by NGO common cause on 25th January, a three bench of the Supreme Court of India observed that the judgment of Aruna Shanbaug case was based on a wrong interpretation of the constitution bench judgment in Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab.

Court observed that the judgment is inconsistent in itself as though it observes that euthanasia can be allowed only by legislature yet it goes on to lay down guidelines on the same.

So, the court referred this issue to the constitution bench which shall contain at least five-judge, and their task was to decide whether Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to die with dignity. The court observed-

Given the inconsistent opinions rendered in Aruna Shanbaug (supra) and also considering the important question of law involved which needs to be reflected in the light of social, legal, medical, and constitutional perspectives, it becomes extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law. Thus, in our cogent opinion, the question of law involved requires careful consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court for the benefit of humanity as a whole. On March 9, 2018, the Supreme court of India legalized passive euthanasia. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) until she died in 2015. Although active euthanasia is still illegal in India.

V. Response

After the judgment passed by Supreme Court about legalizing euthanasia “, The Telegraph” consulted with Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jain religious leaders. Though generally against legalizing euthanasia, Christians and the Jains thought passive euthanasia was acceptable under some circumstances. Jains and Hindus have the traditional rituals Santhara and Prayopavesa respectively, wherein one fast unto death.

Muslims are against euthanasia. They believe that all human life is sacred because it is given by Allah and that Allah chooses how long each person will live. Human beings should not interfere in this.

Impact of Euthanasia on society

“If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one”. This happens to be one of the most widely used slogans by an abortion activist. Similarly, right-to-die activities contend that if euthanasia or assisted suicide are legalized then they should only have an impact on the people who choose them. In simpler words those who don’t want it won’t be euthanasia.

Legalized euthanasia in our society could have a negative impact as it is not hidden that the suicide rate is already high enough, and legalizing assisted suicide will just provide another way for people who are already looking to escape their responsibility and problems. This legalization could disturbingly increase the suicide rate and make our society frail.

VI. Conclusion

It is often argued that if voluntary euthanasia is allowed then that would soon be widened to include non-voluntary euthanasia of those who are suffering but unable to speak for themselves. The arguments are supported by history, especially the contemporary experience of the Netherlands where the category of those for whom euthanasia is allowed has gradually widened from those adults who are suffering intractably and choose death for themselves to those who are incompetent, and then more widely to include those who are mentally ill and to children and more recently there is lobbying to extend it to those who are simply elderly and wish to die. It should be noted that in the above responses, this is the first mention of a slippery slope argument. Euthanasia is not merely wrong from what it might lead to, it is wrong because of what it does in the here and now for people in declaring that some people do not have the same protection of the law and that respect for their lives depends on them continuing a will to live. The latter is likely to be affected by the presence of the option of euthanasia and the likelihood that they may then feel they should rid others, such as their family, of the burden of their continued existence. Euthanasia implies that some lives are not worth living and thus undermines the goals of palliative care which holds all people to be valuable and worth assisting. The chronically ill and the frail elderly need our love and our support to live as fully and as meaningfully as possible during the dying process.

At last, I would like to conclude this article with quotes,

Some doctors who specialize in the care of geriatric patients have told me that there are rare occasions when they have heard a very old, sick, and frail person announce, “I’m going to die today.” And the individual did. But it doesn’t happen often.”

• Derek Humphry, Final Exit: The Practicalities of Self-deliverance & Assisted Suicide for the Dying

*****