The other day as I was browsing through channels, I stumbled upon the heartrending story of Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who has been lying unconscious in a vegetative state for the last 36 years at Mumbai’s King Edward Memorial Hospital.
Aruna Shanbaug who worked as a nurse was sodomized and strangulated with a dog chain on the hospital premises by a ward boy on November 27, 1973. The brutal attack had sent her into a coma from which she never recovered. The asphyxiation cut off the oxygen supply to her brain. As a result, she has become cortically blind – her eyes can see but her brain does not register the images.
She is now brain-dead. She cannot speak, hear or see; and she is force-fed everyday. Doctors who have been attending to her say that there is no hope of her recovery. What is more shocking, is that her assailant is roaming free after serving his term and continues to work as a ward boy in another city.
Pinki Virani, a journalist by profession, who followed Aruna Shanbaug’s story for years, had filed a petition with the Supreme Court to end Aruna’s life. She had asked the SC to order the hospital to stop force feeding her, allowing her to die in about four days.
This was not the first time that a mercy killing petition has gone to the courts. In 2004, a terminally-ill Indian chess champion became a focus of an euthanasia debate before he died in a hospital.
Venkatesh, 25, was suffering from a genetic neurological disorder and was on life-support for more than seven months. Both the hospital authorities and the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused his request to turn off his life support system, saying that would amount to an illegal mercy killing.
Every few years, a mercy killing plea makes it to the headlines and there is a great deal of public debate, but nothing really changes. The moot question here is should Aruna Shanbaug be left in such a vegetative state rather than be allowed the right to die as doctors have already said that she has not the slightest chance of recovery?
Many would say that there is a difference when it comes to Venkatesh’s and Aruna’s case, as Venkatesh wanted to donate his organs as he suffered from a genetic neurological disorder and wanted his life support system turned off before his organs suffered irreparable damage.
But in Aruna’s case, one will never be able to say if she wants to die or live. Many of us can ask what right does Pinki Virani have to ask for a stranger’s death, no matter how noble her intention is. Only if Aruna would have left a will stating that she would want to die rather than go through the torment of being in a vegetative state, things would have been a bit easier for Pinki Virani as she could have turned to countries like Netherlands and Switzerland where mercy killings have been legalised.
But in India, we have no law that validates a living will where a terminally ill patient is allowed to decide whether he wants to live or die. Even proponents of Euthanasia or assisted suicides in India, feel that such a law if passed can be misused by the people where cases of honour killing make it to the headlines every other day.
An article in the Open Magazine, ‘The Death Debate’, states:
In Switzerland, the right to die is extended to tourists. In fact, a group called Dignitas organises suicides for foreigners for a fee. “The Indian Constitution speaks about the right to equality. If you are rich, you can go to Switzerland and get a dignified death. But a poor person cannot, and so isn’t his right to equality violated?”
But even in Switzerland, concerns have been raised as the Swiss Academy for Medical Sciences believes the process happens too quickly, and wants regulations requiring a patient to have repeated discussions with his or her doctor over an extended period.
Be it assisted suicide or Euthanasia, the act of killing if legalised will come under heavy criticism from religious groups who feel that the right to live is a gift of God and only God has the right to take away a life. There will be many who from the very onset will oppose such a law being passed in India and I have no problems against those who give thumbs down to such a legislation being passed.
But has the time not come where we can at least have a debate weighing the pros and cons of ‘Euthanasia’ and amend a special law where people in some special cases can be awarded the right to die? Whatever be the outcome of such a debate, one thing is for sure that a single ruling in favour of mercy killing could change the way we look at life, good or bad.
In the end, it is up to us to decide what is more humane – ending a life or letting someone live in a vegetative state.
Source:http://in.yfittopostblog.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment