She is currently interning with LatestLaws. To understand the complexity of the concept of euthanasia, one must know the classification of euthanasia and the terms related to it. Physician Assisted Suicide PAS , wherein the doctor knowingly provides medical assistance to an individual to end their life, who is likely to be experiencing persistent and intolerable suffering and pain.
The physician provides for a complete analysis of the medical condition and determines the most painless and effective method of dying. Voluntary Euthanasia, when the individual wishes through a conscious decision of ending their help with the help of another. It requires full consent and awareness of the concept and process. This takes place when the individual is in a state of permanent unconsciousness and incapacitated beyond treatment. The main element under this remains consent of the individual whose sufferings are irremediable and endless.
This is a quicker method of dying through a lethal and high dose of drug or by injecting a lethal drug. It is an intentional discontinuation which also implies the removal of artificial life support facilities. It is considered as a slow killer and is more comfortable than the active method. It is only aided when the individual no longer remains mentally and physically alert.
There are medical tests and scales like Glasgow Coma Scales GCS to ensure the mental vegetative state of the individual. In many countries and states, this is a legal right provided to individuals usually on medical life support.
In the ancient, or often considered traditional times, euthanasia was labelled as a practice against the culture, religion and even the ethical human values. The medical practice of providing care to those patients who suffer from any terminal illness. Every individual is born with a basic shield of human rights and amongst all such rights, Right to Life is the most essential right.
It is the basic and fundamental right which states that every human being has the right to live and cannot be killed by another being. This right is the umbrella right under which other rights get their light and backing.
Chronology of the Legal Advancements. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides this right to every person. This started a massive debate and deliberations on the concept and its relevance in the Indian context. The two cases, M. Dubal v. State of Maharashtra and Chenna Jagadeeswar v.
State of AP , dealt with the positive and negative aspect of the rights given to the people and the violative nature of certain articles, respectively.
In the case of M. Dubal v State of Maharashtra , the conflict took place on the negative and positive aspects of the rights that were provided to the people. The court ruled that Right to Life under article 21 also contains the Right not to live.
Those on the other hand who make the suicide attempt on account of acute physical ailments, incurable diseases, torture or decrepit physical state induced by old age or disablement need nursing homes and not prisons to prevent them from making the attempts again. The submission made in the court regarding the right to live with dignity was as follows,.
Dying is a part of the process of living. The bench had earlier reserved its judgment on October 11, while observing that the right to die in peace could not be separated from Right to Life under Article 21 of the constitution.
A five-judge bench, headed by Justice J. Verma, in Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab in had held that both assisted suicide and euthanasia were unlawful. The bench stated that the right to life did not include the right to die, hence overruling the two-judge bench decision in P. Rathinam vs Union of India which struck down section of Indian Penal Code attempt to suicide as unconstitutional. In the Gian Kaur case, the apex court held that Article 21 speaks of life with dignity, and only aspects of life which make it more dignified could be read into this Article, thereby pointing out that the right to die was inconsistent with it.
However, later in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India, the Supreme Court in March held that passive euthanasia could be given a nod in case of exceptional circumstances and under strict monitoring of the apex court. Aruna Shanbaug had been in a vegetative state for since , and on her behalf, Pinki Virani, a social activist, journalist and writer, had filed a writ petition claiming that her right to life guaranteed by the constitution had been violated.
Aruna Shanbaug, who spent 42 years in a vegetative state after a brutal sexual assault. The decision could stem from a lack of awareness medical advancements.
Also the court mentioned about many instances in which a person may want to end his life. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case P.
Rathinam v. Union of India. However in the case Gian Kaur v. The court clearly mentioned in this case that Article 21 only guarantees right to life and personal liberty and in no case can the right to die be included in it.
In India, like almost in other countries, euthanasia has no legal aspect. In India there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia and no penal law yet introduced in I. C, which specifically deals with euthanasia. The every act of aiding and abetting the commission of suicide are punished under the section of the I.
Euthanasia or Mercy killing on the other hand means implies the intervention of other human agency to end the life. Mercy killing is thus not suicide and the provision of section does not cover an attempt at mercy killing.
The two concepts are both factually and legally distinct. Euthanasia or Mercy killing is nothing best homicide whatever the circumstances in which it is affected.
C but where there is valid consent of the deceased, exception 5of section is attracted and thus the act of the physician is considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I of section In case of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, the act of physician can be fall under section 88 and 92 of IPC as there is an intention to causing death of a patient for his benefit. And other relatives who are aware of such intention either of the patient or of the physician can be charged under section of IPC.
The Supreme Court explained the position of Indian law on euthanasia in M. Unless it is specifically accepted it cannot be offences. The followings are the arguments against euthanasia: 1. The human life is gift of God and taking life is wrong and immoral human beings cannot be given the right to play the part of God. Thus euthanasia devalues human life. It is totally against the medical ethics, morals and public policy. Medical ethics call for nursing, care giving and healing and not ending the life of the patient.
In the present time, medical science is advancing at a great pace. Thus even the most incurable diseases are becoming curable today. Thus instead of encouraging a patient to end his life, the medical practitioners should encourage the patients to lead their painful life with strength which should be moral as well as physical. The decision to ask for euthanasia is not made solely by the patient. Even the relatives of the patient pay an important role in doing that.
Hence, it is probable that the patient comes under pressure and takes such a drastic step of ending his life. Of course in such cases the pressure is not physical, it is rather moral and psychological which proves to be much stronger.
The patient himself starts to feel that he is a burden on the relatives when they take such a decision for him and finally he also succumbs to it. It is feared that if euthanasia is legalised then other groups of more vulnerable people will become at risk of feeling into taking that option themselves.
Groups that represent disabled people are against the legalisation of euthanasia on the ground that such groups of vulnerable people would feel obliged to opt for euthanasia as they may see themselves as a burden to society. It has a slippery slope effect, for example firstly it can be legalised only for terminally ill people but later on laws can be changed and then it may allow for non- voluntary or involuntary.
Acceptance of euthanasia as an option could exercise a detrimental effect a societal attitudes and on the doctor patient relationship. The doctor patient relationship is based on mutual trust, it is feared this trust may be lost if euthanasia is legalised. When suicide is not allowed then euthanasia should also not be allowed. A person commits suicide when he goes into a state of depression and has no hope from the life. Similar is the situation when a person asks for euthanasia.
But such tendency can be lessened by proper care of such patients and showing hope in them. Miracles do happen in our society especially when it is a matter of life and death, there are examples of patients coming out of coma after years and we should not forget human life is all about hope. Followings are the reasons to legalise euthanasia; 1. Euthanasia means ending the life a person who is suffering from some terminal illness which is making his life painful as well as miserable or in other words ending a life which is not worth living.
But the problem is that how should one decide whether his life is any longer worth living or not. Thus, the term euthanasia is rather too ambiguous. This has been a topic for debate since a long time i. At present, the debate is mainly regarding active euthanasia rather than passive euthanasia.
The dispute is regarding the conflicts of interests: the interest of the society and that of the individual. Which out of these should prevail over the other? According to the supporters of euthanasia the decision of the patients should be accepted.
If on the other hand we weigh the social values with the individual interest then we will clearly see that here the interest of the individual will outweigh the interest of the society. The society aims at interest of the individuals rather it is made with the purpose of assuring a dignified and a peaceful life to all.
Now if the individual who is under unbearable pain is not able to decide for himself then it surely will hamper his interest.
In that case it will surely be a negation of his dignity and human rights. Euthanasia provides a way to relieve the intolerably extreme pain and suffering of an individual.
It relieves the terminally ill people from a lingering death. Thus it expresses the choice of a person which is a fundamental principle. In many developing and under developed countries like India, there is lack of funds.
There is shortage of hospital space. So, the energy of doctors and hospital beds can be used for those people whose life can be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die.
Another important point on which the supporters of euthanasia emphasize is that a lot of medical facilities which amount a lot are being spent on these patients who are in any case going to die.
Thus, they argue that rather than spending those on such patients, it will be much better to use such facilities for those who have even fair chances of recovery. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution clearly provides for living with dignity.
A person has a right to live a life with at least minimum dignity and if that standard is falling below that minimum level then a person should be given a right to end his life.
Supporters of euthanasia also point out to the fact that as passive euthanasia has been allowed, similarly active euthanasia must also be allowed. A patient will wish to end his life only in cases of excessive agony and would prefer to die a painless death rather than living a miserable life with that agony and suffering.
Thus, from a moral point of view it will be better to allow the patient die painlessly when in any case he knows that he is going to die because of that terminal illness. Its aim is altruistic and beneficial as it is an act of painlessly putting to death to those persons who are suffering from painful and incurable diseases.
So, the motive behind this is to help rather than harm. It not only relives the unbearable pain of a patient but also relieves the relatives of a patient from the mental agony. A point which is often raised against the supporters of euthanasia is that if such right will be granted to the terminally ill patients then there will be chances of abusing it.
We should rather look at the brighter side of it than thinking of it being abused. He sodomised Aruna after strangling her with a dog chain. The attack left Aruna blind, paralysed and speechless and she went into a coma from which she has never come out. She is cared for by KEM hospital nurses and doctors. The woman does not want to live any more. The doctors have told her that there is no chance of any improvement in her state.
Her wrists are twisted inwards; her fingers are bent and fisted towards her palms, resulting in growing nails tearing into the flesh very often. Her teeth are decayed and giving her immense pain. Food is completely mashed and given to her in semisolid form.
0コメント