The term "Euthanasia" is pronounced as "yoothaynaysiaa" and means "The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment." The popular lingo calls Euthanasia as "Mercy Killing". The word is derived from the Greek word of the same name meaning "Good Death". Aruna Shanbaug may not be in a condition to try and come to terms with the reason she has evoked a strong judgment from the Supreme Court. She may or may not choose to end her life, given a choice, but her condition has laid foundation for a debate which may not easily conclude despite some directives from the Apex court.
What is it?
Let us first understand what does Euthanasia mean for the Medical fraternity. There are three types of Euthanasia - Active, Passive and Death by Double Effect. Active Euthanasia is causing the death of a person through the direct action in response to a request from that person. A lethal medicine is administered to the patient and the death is almost immediate. In Passive Euthanasia, the death of the patient is hastened by altering some form of life support and allowing Mother Nature to take her natural course e.g. turning off respirators, halting medication, discontinuing of food/water to let the patient starve and failure to resuscitate. The third type uses heavy doses of painkillers which serve the dual purpose of hastening the death as well as provide instant relief to the patient.
Is it Legal?
Many people have died because of Euthanasia. Some of those cases have drawn flak from the society and the indictment from the Law. Others have been treated as the best thing to do in the circumstances. Over the years following consistent efforts by NGOs and medical bodies, several governments have put in place some policies to deal with petitions and incidents of Euthanasia. The support from Law is mostly for the passive form of Euthanasia under certain circumstances and almost all jurisdictions prohibit active method. Some even call it "Manslaughter". Netherlands is the only country to have legalized all forms of Euthanasia.
Indian Supreme Court gave some definitive guidelines earlier this month to govern the practice of Euthanasia in India. Upholding the distinction between active euthanasia, which involves taking specific steps such as injecting a person with a lethal substance, and passive euthanasia, which is withdrawing medical treatment with the knowledge that it will cause death, the court has held that the latter is permissible in exceptional circumstances — for example, when a patient is kept alive purely mechanically and when he or she is “only able to sustain involuntary functioning through advanced medical technology.” Citing a slew of international case laws on the subject, the Supreme Court has laid down a strict framework for the procedure to be adopted for non-voluntary passive euthanasia until suitable legislation is in place. All mercy-killing pleas should be heard by a two-member bench of the appropriate High Court and decisions may be taken only after seeking medical opinion from three empanelled doctors, who must examine the patient, his or her medical records, and also get the views of the hospital staff.
Such decisions can be taken by parents, spouses, and close relatives or, in their absence (as in Ms Shanbaug's case), the “next friend.”
Is it Ethical?
Any opinion is always supposed to differ on any topic per say. This topic is no different either. To form any opinion of our own, we should contemplate a few questions.
We never had the choice of birth and hence the logic will not solicit the idea of taking our own lives. Yet, people have committed suicides and murders and have participated in a plot to kill since times immemorial. When all of this has been rated as inhumane and wrong all these years, Euthanasia is just another form of suicide. Yet, the nod for Euthanasia may not come out of a terrible urge to do something dark but may originate out of sheer hopelessness. The patient may have reached the nadir of his/her strength and zeal to fight for his/her life. Unfortunately, there is no scale to judge this fall and hence, we cannot rely on this emotional callousness to agree to die.
What were we doing till the point when we came so close to death? My dear friends, we were living. Life is the single biggest gift to all of us and our very existence. We have to strive to live to honour the spirit of the Humanity which espouses "Never Say Never" attitude. As such, we do not have the right to take our own life. If we cannot take our lives, nobody else can no matter who they are.
Diseases in the current age of highly advanced technology are often under some kind of control. The mortality is at its historical low. More and more dangerously ill people have chances of survival. And the art of medical science, yes you read correctly as science is art driven by statistics, has yet to go beyond the realms of statistics and experiments. It is a tribute to the wonderful people practicing medical science that they are helping the Human Beings with ongoing improvements in their study of Man.
Man is not a machine run by electro-biochemistry like any other machine which could be set right by repairing or replacing damaged organs. We have been using the linear laws of the inanimate sciences of physics and chemistry on an animate but conscious human being, a square peg in a round hole. Even physics now has come to realize that energy is the other name for matter; rightly called a-duality (Advaita). Man, thus, becomes a bundle of energy with her/his own consciousness. No two human beings are alike as we do not have even identical fingerprints. Our idea of one-size-fits-all does not work in man. Even a comatose patient has his/her own consciousness. A child could remember the lullabies of the mother she said when it was in the womb. Perinatal consciousness imprints itself on the child for the rest of its life. Head injury patients have their own awareness. Patients under anesthesia on the operating table could recount the conversation of the nurses and doctors.
Hence, we can never determine for sure that a patient has no scope for further living. Medical Science is not GOD and miracles have happened. We cannot technically and ethically accept the plea of deaths.
Now comes the last question about control exercised by Law. Here is what the honourable SC judges had to say on Aruna's Death plea, "We could have dismissed the petition on the short ground that…the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die. However, in view of the importance of the issues involved we decided to go deeper into the merits of the case." Exceptional circumstances do arise and they should be treated on merit. Now, in India we have a legal framework in place to legally announce who can be allowed to die with dignity. Such cases must be dealt with utmost care where sufficient medical and legal acumen and facts must be established before we can let the patient die.
As a last note, I feel really sorry for Aruna. Please pray for her recovery and that no such incidence occurs again in future. Her rapist may be sitting in some corner living a life devoid of the pain she has borne but his conscience will declare him guilty without pardon if he ever chooses to stand to it.
What is it?
Let us first understand what does Euthanasia mean for the Medical fraternity. There are three types of Euthanasia - Active, Passive and Death by Double Effect. Active Euthanasia is causing the death of a person through the direct action in response to a request from that person. A lethal medicine is administered to the patient and the death is almost immediate. In Passive Euthanasia, the death of the patient is hastened by altering some form of life support and allowing Mother Nature to take her natural course e.g. turning off respirators, halting medication, discontinuing of food/water to let the patient starve and failure to resuscitate. The third type uses heavy doses of painkillers which serve the dual purpose of hastening the death as well as provide instant relief to the patient.
Is it Legal?
Many people have died because of Euthanasia. Some of those cases have drawn flak from the society and the indictment from the Law. Others have been treated as the best thing to do in the circumstances. Over the years following consistent efforts by NGOs and medical bodies, several governments have put in place some policies to deal with petitions and incidents of Euthanasia. The support from Law is mostly for the passive form of Euthanasia under certain circumstances and almost all jurisdictions prohibit active method. Some even call it "Manslaughter". Netherlands is the only country to have legalized all forms of Euthanasia.
Indian Supreme Court gave some definitive guidelines earlier this month to govern the practice of Euthanasia in India. Upholding the distinction between active euthanasia, which involves taking specific steps such as injecting a person with a lethal substance, and passive euthanasia, which is withdrawing medical treatment with the knowledge that it will cause death, the court has held that the latter is permissible in exceptional circumstances — for example, when a patient is kept alive purely mechanically and when he or she is “only able to sustain involuntary functioning through advanced medical technology.” Citing a slew of international case laws on the subject, the Supreme Court has laid down a strict framework for the procedure to be adopted for non-voluntary passive euthanasia until suitable legislation is in place. All mercy-killing pleas should be heard by a two-member bench of the appropriate High Court and decisions may be taken only after seeking medical opinion from three empanelled doctors, who must examine the patient, his or her medical records, and also get the views of the hospital staff.
Such decisions can be taken by parents, spouses, and close relatives or, in their absence (as in Ms Shanbaug's case), the “next friend.”
Is it Ethical?
Any opinion is always supposed to differ on any topic per say. This topic is no different either. To form any opinion of our own, we should contemplate a few questions.
- Do we have a right to die?
- Can we ever determine for sure that our condition has deteriorated to a point of no return?
- Can somebody else decide on our behalf when we should die?
- Do we have to seek traditional and medical precedences to arrive at a decision?
- Should there be a law to govern this issue for us?
We never had the choice of birth and hence the logic will not solicit the idea of taking our own lives. Yet, people have committed suicides and murders and have participated in a plot to kill since times immemorial. When all of this has been rated as inhumane and wrong all these years, Euthanasia is just another form of suicide. Yet, the nod for Euthanasia may not come out of a terrible urge to do something dark but may originate out of sheer hopelessness. The patient may have reached the nadir of his/her strength and zeal to fight for his/her life. Unfortunately, there is no scale to judge this fall and hence, we cannot rely on this emotional callousness to agree to die.
What were we doing till the point when we came so close to death? My dear friends, we were living. Life is the single biggest gift to all of us and our very existence. We have to strive to live to honour the spirit of the Humanity which espouses "Never Say Never" attitude. As such, we do not have the right to take our own life. If we cannot take our lives, nobody else can no matter who they are.
Diseases in the current age of highly advanced technology are often under some kind of control. The mortality is at its historical low. More and more dangerously ill people have chances of survival. And the art of medical science, yes you read correctly as science is art driven by statistics, has yet to go beyond the realms of statistics and experiments. It is a tribute to the wonderful people practicing medical science that they are helping the Human Beings with ongoing improvements in their study of Man.
Man is not a machine run by electro-biochemistry like any other machine which could be set right by repairing or replacing damaged organs. We have been using the linear laws of the inanimate sciences of physics and chemistry on an animate but conscious human being, a square peg in a round hole. Even physics now has come to realize that energy is the other name for matter; rightly called a-duality (Advaita). Man, thus, becomes a bundle of energy with her/his own consciousness. No two human beings are alike as we do not have even identical fingerprints. Our idea of one-size-fits-all does not work in man. Even a comatose patient has his/her own consciousness. A child could remember the lullabies of the mother she said when it was in the womb. Perinatal consciousness imprints itself on the child for the rest of its life. Head injury patients have their own awareness. Patients under anesthesia on the operating table could recount the conversation of the nurses and doctors.
Hence, we can never determine for sure that a patient has no scope for further living. Medical Science is not GOD and miracles have happened. We cannot technically and ethically accept the plea of deaths.
Now comes the last question about control exercised by Law. Here is what the honourable SC judges had to say on Aruna's Death plea, "We could have dismissed the petition on the short ground that…the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die. However, in view of the importance of the issues involved we decided to go deeper into the merits of the case." Exceptional circumstances do arise and they should be treated on merit. Now, in India we have a legal framework in place to legally announce who can be allowed to die with dignity. Such cases must be dealt with utmost care where sufficient medical and legal acumen and facts must be established before we can let the patient die.
As a last note, I feel really sorry for Aruna. Please pray for her recovery and that no such incidence occurs again in future. Her rapist may be sitting in some corner living a life devoid of the pain she has borne but his conscience will declare him guilty without pardon if he ever chooses to stand to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment