Law on passive euthanasia is need of hour
The apex court has also appointed former solicitor general TR Andhyarujina as amicus curiae to assist it in the case relating to legalizing euthanasia.
The plea, filed by an NGO Common Cause, put that a person, who is afflicted with a terminal disease, should be given relief from agony by withdrawing artificial medical support provided to him.
What is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia generally refers to the practice of intentionally ending someone's life in order to relieve him/her of pain and suffering.There are different euthanasia laws in each country. Some have legalised it while some have not. Euthanasia can be further divided into Active and Passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is withdrawal of medical treatment with the intention of causing a terminally ill patient's death. For example, if the patient is on life-supporting system, the deliberate removal of it will be passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is deliberately causing the patient's death by injecting with poison or giving an overdose of sleeping pills and other lethal medicines
What
is
Central
Government's
stand?
The
Central
Government
has
strongly
opposed
the
plea
saying
it
cannot
be
legalized
as
it
is
a
form
of
suicide
which
is
an
offence
in
the
country.
It
said
that
if
euthanasia
is
legalized,
then
it
will
be
misused.
Attorney
general
Mukul
Rohatgi
submitted
that
the
issue
should
be
debated
and
decided
by
the
legislature
and
that
it
is
not
a
matter
to
be
adjudicated
by
the
court.
Is a Law on euthanasia need of hour?
Doctors are of view that Passive euthanasia should be allowed in some exceptional cases like Aruna Shanbaug. They say it should be legalised and done after legal documentation and consent of a special board at every level. People have been suffering for years together and it is for these people that passive euthanasia should be legalised. Undoubtedly, euthanasia should be legalised as it involve huge wastage of country's resources. There are families which spend the last penny to keep their beloved one's alive. It is important to note here that physician aided death is still being practised across the country, where the patients, with dead-brain, removed from life supporting device with mutual consent between the families and the doctors.
Passive euthanasia should be allowed in exceptional cases like Aruna Shanbaug.
Should
be
legalised
when
there
is
no
hope
of
recovery
In
a
landmark
judgment,
on
7
March
2011,
the
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
passive
euthanasia
was
allowed
to
patients
in
a
permanent
vegetative
state.
The
decision
was
made
as
part
of
the
verdict
in
a
case
involving
Aruna
Shanbaug,
who
has
been
in
a
vegetative
state
for
37
years
at
Mumbai's
KEM
hospital.
However,
the
court
turned
down
Aruna
Shanbaug's
mercy
killing
plea
and
laid
a
set
of
tough
guidelines
under
which
passive
euthanasia
can
be
legalised
through
high
court
monitored
mechanism.
The
apex
court
while
framing
the
guidelines
for
passive
euthanasia
asserted
that
it
would
now
become
the
law
of
the
land
until
Parliament
enacts
a
suitable
legislation
to
deal
with
the
issue.
People have the right to choose
People have the right to die with dignity and making euthanasia illegal takes this right away. If someone is terminally ill and has no chance of recovery, then he should be given the choice to live or to die. They should be allowed to die rather than giving them torture.
High chances of law being misused
Such an act can be easily misused rather than its proper utilization. It could be misused as an option for harvesting organs or for financial gains. Euthanasia could also be done due to the patient's inability to afford treatment.
Central Government has rightly said that a highly-sensitive subject like euthanasia need to be debated before taking any decision. As the matter is related to somebody's life, it should be handle with care. Government must show maturity while dealing with the issue.