Should passive or active euthanasia be allowed in a country like India?
The highest court verdict seems to draw a divider between the two by allowing passive mercy killing to a patient in coma for 37 years. The verdict also raised some questions that are needed to be discussed separately.
The Verdict
Recently, the Indian Supreme Court has announced a verdict. Aruna Shanbaug, a Mumbai hospital nurse, lying on the bed for 37 years has been allowed to passive euthanasia by the highest court. But, the Supreme Court divisional bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyansudha Mishra has strictly prohibited active euthanasia. Besides, the verdict clearly stated that article 309 of Indian Constitution should be deleted. This article views suicide as a punishable offence. But the highest court ruled that people who try to commit suicide need help, not punishment. And euthanasia is similar to committing suicide with the help of others.
Euthanasia
Before going further, I should discuss the difference between active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia is the mercy killing of a terminally ill patient by lethal object through injection. Passive euthanasia is also a process of mercy killing by withdrawal of the life supporting system e.g. heart or lungs machine or withdrawal of food. But, in both cases, the patient should be in the persistent vegetative state i.e. there is no chance of recovery. Active euthanasia is only permitted in The Netherlands while passive euthanasia is allowed in the countries like UK, USA, Australia etc. In case of Aruna Shanbaug, the Supreme Court ruled, the KEM hospital authority can withdraw her food and thus can help her starving to death. The court also has given an option to the hospital authority. If the doctors treating Aruna do not agree to commit the passive mercy killing, they can appeal to the Bombay High Court and their decision will certainly be respected.
Aruna Shanbaug story
Now, who is Aruna Shanbaug? This 60 years old Mumbai KEM Hospital staff nurse has been lying on the bed for at least 3 decades. Doctors and caregivers said, she is in a permanent vegetative state. There is no chance that Aruna would be recovered one day.
What happened to her? 37 years ago, the KEM nurse has been brutally assaulted and sodomised by a 4th class staff of the hospital. She was found inside an empty operation theatre, lying in a pool of blood, with a dog chain around her neck. Doctors treating Aruna said, the chain had hit her spine, eventually halted blood circulation in brain and thus transformed her into a persistently vegetative state. Aruna has no chance of recovery. Aruna cannot speak; her eyes always stay wide open. She has to be fed through her nose. But, she can understand the charm of music, the taste of food. She enjoys being with friends. She recognize people, she smiles at them. The nurses and caregivers share an emotional bond with Aruna. Nobody wants her to be dead so soon. But question also arises, what kind of living is this?
The Appeal to Supreme Court for Euthanasia
A friend of Aruna Shanbaug as well as a social activist, Pinky Virani had appealed to the highest court for the euthanasia. Supreme Court in its verdict clearly stated that the appeal should be made by the patient himself or herself. If the patient is not in the state to do so, a very close acquaintance like spouse, relative or a ‘next friend’ can appeal for the same. But, the Supreme Court rejected Virani’s plea because it did not consider her as a ‘next friend’. Although the highest court has appreciated her effort, but in its verdict, it was clearly stated that Pinky Virani is not Aruna’s ‘next friend’ of the patient and therefore her appeal could not be considered. Nurses and caregivers close to Aruna chanted slogans after hearing the verdict against Virani, ‘Pinky Virani Murdabad!’
Now, the question arises here is that, how can a social activist appeal to the highest court for a mercy killing of a patient hardly known to her? Although Aruna Shanbaug is not in a state to speak out her desire, wouldn’t it be inhumane to put her life to an end without even asking for her consent?
Should Passive Euthanasia be allowed?
This is the most important question that has been aroused after the Supreme Court nod on passive mercy killing was announced. The highest court clearly ruled out the possibility of an active euthanasia. As a reason it showed that, in a country like India, this cannot be allowed because evil-hearted human may use it to put a family feud to an end. It may be used as a tool to erase enemies for money as well too. But if it is the reason, then why should passive euthanasia be allowed to take place? Wouldn’t it be used for evil purpose too?
There are more things to consider. In case of active euthanasia, the patient in a persistently vegetative state would be injected with lethal substance to put his or her life to an end. A doctor can only be able to give the injection. But, in case of passive euthanasia, the life supporting system would be withdrawn. That may range from a respiratory machine to the withdrawal of food. In case of Aruna, she would be starved to death, if the doctors want, because her only life supporting system is food. Now, the question is, like active euthanasia, passive mercy would include a doctor’s consent too. But, wouldn’t it be more inhumane, if the patient is withdrawn the life supporting system and therefore submits helplessly to death? This would even take much time to succumb as the patient would desperately long for the last breath.
Isn’t’ it a terrible crime against humanity?
Suchetana Chakraborty
--------------------------------------