Euthanasia or so-called mercy killing has always been a moral and social dilemma since time immemorial and in 2018 it created a legal dilemma in India when the historical case of justice for Aruna Shanbaug was considered in Supreme Court.
Even in the 21st century, what makes euthanasia a hot debatable topic is that all these advancements in science have not discovered a method to create life. So, the destruction of life in any condition is questionable. The word euthanasia is derived from a Greek word EU Thanatos meaning “good or dignified death” defines the act of killing a person painlessly to relieve their suffering usually requested by a patient suffering from an incurable disease. Only When a person is in a vegetative state due to terminal illness, euthanasia is legal and many countries have declared it illegal as it deals with a very controversial topic of killing oneself. It is very important to analyze the situation in which euthanasia is asked to decide its legal validity as it is also a tool of misuse.
42 years of darkness and plight
Aruna Shanbaug was a junior nurse in King Edward Memorial hospital in Mumbai when she was attacked by a sweeper Sohanlal Walmiki who strangled and sodomized her on 27 November 1973. Asphyxiation cut off oxygen to her brain resulting in brain stem contusion injury, cervical cord injury and cortical blindness as a result of which she was in a vegetative state for the next 42 years.
Later, her friend Pinki Virani, a journalist and activist, filed a petition in the Supreme Court arguing that the “continued existence of Aruna is in violation of her right to live in dignity”. On 7th March 2011, SC made a landmark judgment issuing a set of broad guidelines legalizing passive euthanasia in India.
The historic Judgement on 9th March 2018: The five-judge Constitution bench headed by former Chief Justice of India(CJI) Dipak Mishra said passive euthanasia and living will, are permissible. It said that a terminally ill patient can go for a ”living will”.
A living will is a statement that documents the preferences of a person towards being kept alive in a vegetative state or when he/ she is diagnosed with a terminal illness. Even though there were various opinions among the bench, all the judges were unanimous that the “living will” should be permitted since a person should not be made to suffer in a comatose state when they choose or wish not to live hence permitting the doctor to withdraw life support.
Euthanasia had always been a debatable legal dilemma. It involves the concept of individual liberty and in this century when the rights of people are considered as important as basic amenities, it is very important that a person must be able to choose whether to die or live especially when they are not in a condition to express their will in a vegetative state.
It should be noted that this might also be misused by others who would like to eliminate a person to proclaim their interests like against old or mentally ill people especially children who might become a burden to their guardians due to chronic illnesses.
Hence, the government and the medical world should prescribe exact guidelines regarding deciding the situations in which passive euthanasia can be allowed only in cases in which the patient is not left with any hope of coming out of their state of illness. A medical practitioner who is an agent of the government should also be present on the scene and a detailed medical report describing the situation should be made. It is on part of the government as executives of the Judicial provisions to ensure a fair process in this controversial issue.