The term ‘euthanasia’ is formed from the Greek terms ‘eu’ and ‘thanatos’ which mean ‘good’ and ‘death’ respectively. The term has several meanings just like most other terms in our language; however the implications here are immense. Euthanasia generally has no commonly accepted and a philosophically grounded core meaning. There are several forms of euthanasia like active and passive euthanasia, voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Active euthanasia occurs when a person plays an active role by directly causing the patient’s death, like giving excessive amount of painkillers. On the other hand passive euthanasia is brought about by an act of omission like not providing a treatment or withdrawing the treatment. This form has been more recognized for ending lives at the terminal stages of incurable diseases.
Some people do not agree with the need to differentiate euthanasia into active and passive, since the passive approach is also carried out with the intention of bringing death. The voluntary euthanasia occurs when a competent and dying patient asks for it while non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when someone else decides for the affected individual. Non-voluntary euthanasia happens when the affected individuals are either too young to decide for themselves or are mentally not capable to take a decision. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when a person desires to live, but is however allowed to die. Some people however do not consider involuntary euthanasia as a form of euthanasia, as the death here is not caused by the wishes of the patient. One of the more acceptable forms of euthanasia is indirect euthanasia where treatment is offered like for pain relieving, which also has an effect of accelerating death. This form looks more acceptable, as killing is not the main intention.
The ethics and legality involved in euthanasia has been a major topic of debate since the mid twentieth century. James Rachels in his book Problems from Philosophy justifies death if it’s the only way to escape unrelenting pain. Sometimes terminally ill patients suffer so extreme pain that it is beyond the comprehension of people, who haven’t experienced it. Recounting the death of Irish satirist in Jonathan Swift in 1745, James Rachels describes the last three years of Swift’s life fighting excruciating pain. His last thirty six hours of life were affected by convulsions. The author-philosopher also highlights a similar modern case emphasizing that when a person wants death as a means to end the suffering, particularly when the person is to die anyway, it is not wrong to help him or her to die soon. This approach is also seen to be right from the utilitarian’s perspective, which decides anything to be morally right when it can reduce misery or increase happiness. Another perspective of voluntary euthanasia associated to the utilitarian view is that it violates no person’s rights and in some cases it actually promotes the interests of all involved. It is not difficult for physicians to normally identify terminal illness and incurable health status. When that state is near and tormenting, it is only reasonable to hasten the inevitable death, than try to prolong it, particularly when the individual desires it.
The case of Aruna Shanbaug brought to the attention of our nation for the need of euthanasia, several years back. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug was a nurse in the King Edwards Memorial Hospital in Mumbai when she was assaulted by a sweeper of the same hospital while changing her clothes in the hospital basement. During the assault, she was tied with a dog chain around her neck, which cut off oxygen supply from her brain and rendered her in a permanent vegetative state for the next 42 years.
From the day of the assault till the day she died, Aruna could only survive on mashed food. She could not move her hands or legs, could not talk or perform the basic functions of a human being. Journalist-Activist Pinky Virani, who had published a book regarding her case titled Aruna’s Story, filed a writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court of India, asking for the legalization of euthanasia so that Aruna’s continued suffering could be terminated by withdrawing medical support. The Supreme permitted passive mercy killing of a patient in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) by withdrawing the life support system with the approval of a medical board and on the directions of the High Court concerned. The court permitted passive euthanasia with guidelines and high court supervision. It however rejected the plea in the present case.
Today the Supreme Court of India has recognized “living will” by individual wherein they can specify their desire to not prolong life if they slip into a coma or incapability state. The top court has allowed an individual to draft a living will specifying that they not be put on life support if they slip into an incurable coma in the future. In a ‘living will’, a person can make a statement in advance that their life should not be prolonged by putting them on a ventilator or an artificial support system. The order was passed today by a five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice (CJI) Dipak Misra and Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. The apex court’s order came on a plea by the NGO ‘Common Cause’. We have all come into this world not by our own choice, but we have the right to leave it on our choice.
Hello, I read your blogs regularly. Your writing style is awesome,
keep it up!