The word "euthanasia" translates from Greek as a "good death" ,a pleasant way to depart well from life. The recent Bollywood movie Guzarish deals with this sensitive topic,albeit through rose-tinted glasses. Euthanasia is a matter of continuing debate, with opinions ranging from vociferous advocacy, careful approval to outright rejection. Indeed, some would go so far as to call euthanasia murder. But who decides when the quality of a person's life is too poor to continue living? Physicians? Relatives? Or the law? Is it only the terminally ill who can be administered merciful death or even the mentally ill who merit euthanasia?
The arguments for mercy-killing are indeed pertinent and valid. It is the only relief available to people suffering from incurable, painful and end-stage diseases like cancer. A once proud individual reduced to a vegetable-like existence is justified in demanding alleviation from pain. In a free world, each and everyone of us should have the freedom of choice. And purely from a practical point of view, it frees up medical resources and funds to help other patients who will benefit from it.
On the other hand, euthanasia is a form of killing, both from the legal as well as moral point of view. In a country like India, it may well be used as a license for criminal and intentional murder. It is possible mercy killing may cause a decline in medical standards as well.For a physician who has taken the Hippocratic Oath, killing patients is the primary taboo. With the advancement of medical science, palliative care is a better way to help terminal patients live a pain free and dignified existence. Euthanasia would nip in the bud so many miraculous death bed recoveries one hears of. Depressed individuals might take recourse to it as the easy way out.
One wonders what opinion Aruna Shanbagh would hold on this issue,if she were capable of rational thought. Raped in 1973 and in a vegetative state since then, with no relatives to look after her, Aruna has been cared for by nurses at the KEM hospital for 36 years. A petition to allow Aruna to die has sparked a heated debate across India. The Supreme Court does not give permission to die and Indian scriptures have for centuries upheld the values of life and its preservation.But these words are cold comfort to Aruna and others like her who lead an existence that can at best be called sub-human. In the US,the case of Terry Schiavo was another distressing example of a conflict between family members which led her to be sustained through artificial feeding for 15 years though she had been left in a vegetative state after a cardiac arrest. Ms Shiavo's feeding tube was removed in 2005 after protracted legal battle and she died some days later. She died in a natural,humane process,and dozens of other patients in her similar physical state deserve the same consideration. Or so would believe Dr Kevorkian, dubbed Dr Death for his passionate defense of choice for terminal patients. In 1998, he assisted a terminally ill patient with a lethal injection that was broadcast on television. Arrested soon after, Dr Kevorkian has been instrumental in winning terminally ill patients the right to decide on the time and method of their own death. Dr Death or Angel of Mercy, the debate rages on.
Popular opinion holds that the Final Departure should be a dignified one. A person with an incurable disease,or in terrible pain with no hope of recovery should be given the right to decide if he wants to die in peace. The central issue should not be what family members desire for themselves or for their loved one. The point to consider is what the patient would want. If there is no clear indication of what he would have preferred, and in the absence of public policy or clear family consensus,medical aid should be continued. But enforcing life-prolonging treatment against the patient's desire is unethical. At the same time, there should be stringent laws in place that ensure that no false play is possible. Every patient admitted to a hospital should fill out a "living will" indicating their wishes in the event that they lose their competence in future. Each human being is an individual and there can be no single rule that applies to each and everyone. It is up to the family,medical professionals and the law to decide which path to take. But every person has the right to a Death of Dignity and one hopes the law guarantees that for each of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment