Metro Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Hyderabad
Death row
|
What would happen to a Terri Shiavo in our own country?
|
— Reuters
The Terri Schiavo (inset) case became a huge emotional issue in America, obliterating the possibility of any sane debate on the issue of euthanasia. — Reuters
IS IT murder or is it providing deliverance from suffering? How you define euthanasia depends on which warring faction you belong to. The right to die when there is no hope of return to a life of dignity (derived from Greek words eu for "good" and thanatos for "death") has been a tricky issue for centuries. It has roped in every realm of human knowledge: from philosophical questions in the realm of medicine, sociology, politics and religion to the nitty-gritty of legal procedure.
The debate raged more furiously than ever recently around Terri Schiavo, as she herself lay oblivious of it all on her hospital bed in Florida. As the husband and her parents wrangled over whether or not Terri, brain dead for 15 years, should be kept alive on feeding tubes, the whole nation got involved in the issue.
Neocon views
A range of powerful people — starting with the U.S. President who sends out troops to obliterate nations to "spiritual advisers" who love Mr. Bush for his neocon views — demonised the judge who allowed the "murder" and the husband who sought it. The questions raised in various fora ranged from whether Terri was really in a persistent vegetative state to whether any human has a right to take away a life God made "in His own image".
The hysteria may have happened continents away from us. But then it's a fundamental human issue and a similar situation, fraught with medical and moral dilemmas, could arise just next door. It did recently in Hyderabad, when K. Venkatesh, in an advanced stage of muscular dystrophy, wanted to be taken off the ventilator. The issues were different, though, because Venkatesh was in a position to state what he wanted (making his a case of "voluntary euthanasia" as opposed Terri's case of "passive euthanasia") and it also involved organ transplant debates. The court ruled against him.
A far cry
So how do euthanasia debates shape in our own context? Lawrence Liang of Alternative Law Forum says the question of a law on euthanasia is a far cry in a country that criminalises even attempted suicide.
With no separate laws in place for euthanasia, it can only be read vis-à-vis other laws: Section 306 of IPC, which criminalises suicides, and Section 309 which criminalises abetment of suicide. "So, we should first seek decriminalisation of suicides," says Lawrence. A landmark judgement in 1995 did decriminalise suicide, reading "right to life" as also "right to die with dignity". But it was overruled three years later.
Even a "living will" stating choice of death would have no legal validity in our country as it's in violation of a public policy. Some, however, argue that a will would help resolve a family's moral dilemma if not the legal one.
The euthanasia and suicide questions, says Lawrence, hinge on our notions of self, autonomy, and the role of state in individual affairs. As opposed to a libertarian one, we are a system where the state takes on the role of a "father". "This is problematic if you see it, for instance, in terms of the gender issue. But it sees the state as having certain responsibilities towards its citizens." This gains special significance in a country marked by sharp inequalities.
Lawrence believes that euthanasia should be legalised, but adds that it can't simply mean importing legal systems of countries such as the Netherlands that have legalised euthanasia. "It is difficult to set universal moral standards on issues of this kind." It would be absurd, for instance, to read the suicide of a farmer in Andhra Pradesh simply as "autonomous choice".
Big step
At the end of the day, the answer is not so much in framing laws that flatten the dynamics of individual circumstances. But one big step would be doing away with the absurdity of treating attempted suicide as criminal offence, adds Lawrence.
At a more philosophical level, we should also, perhaps, be taking a second look at how we define "life" at a time when medical science has advanced enough to keep a person going on tubes and machines for years on end. B.N. Colabawalla, a doctor in Bombay, says in an article on euthanasia: "If we have to call ourselves a civilised society, we must understand death, respect it and civilise it, as much as we respect life."
* * *
Gandhiji said...
AN INTERESTING blog that discusses the issues of ethics in medical practice, blog.bioethics.net, quotes Mahatma Gandhi as saying this on euthanasia: "A calf, having been maimed, lay in agony in the ashram and despite all possible treatment and nursing, the surgeon declared the case to be past help and hope. The animal's suffering was very acute. In the circumstances, I felt that humanity demanded that the agony should be ended by ending life itself. The matter was placed before the whole ashram. Finally, in all humility but with the cleanest of convictions I got in my presence a doctor to administer the calf a quietus by means of a poison injection, and the whole thing was over in less than two minutes.
"Would I apply to human beings the principle that I have enunciated in connection with the calf? Would I like it to be applied in my own case? My reply is yes. Just as a surgeon does not commit himsa when he wields his knife on his patient's body for the latter's benefit, similarly one may find it necessary under certain imperative circumstances to go a step further and sever life from the body in the interest of the sufferer."
BAGESHREE S.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Metro Plus
Bangalore
Chennai
Hyderabad
|
