“Rote hue aate hai sab, hasta hua jo jayega,
Woh mukaddar ka sikandar, jaan-e-mann kehlayega.”
Sung by the legendary Kishore Kumar, these were the lines that Justice AK Sikri quoted in the proceedings that led to a decision in favour of passive euthanasia. The Supreme Court verdict permitting passive euthanasia is indeed a breakthrough in the fight for mercy killing that has been going for decades.
Mercy killing or euthanasia in a layman’s language refers to helping someone end their life artificially (which is not deliberate killing). Euthanasia can be active or passive. Going by the definition, passive euthanasia means withholding the treatment necessary for the continuance of life. On the other hand, active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces (such as administering a lethal injection).
The country probably heard the word euthanasia for the first time, when a plea was made by a journalist to grant euthanasia for Aruna Shambaugh who had remained in a coma for 37 years as a consequence of being brutally raped at the KEM hospital, Mumbai, where she worked as a nurse. A lot of arguments were presented in favour and against the concept, but unfortunately, no decision was taken. Ultimately she died of pneumonia, four years later.
The debate was again triggered recently when an elderly couple Narayan and Iravati Lavate, sought permission from the President of India for active euthanasia because they felt that their lives were worthless.
Though the verdict allowing passive euthanasia has been given, the debate is still not over – and I doubt if it will ever be. As usual, everybody has their own reservations, and there are various conflicts of ideas. But the fact is, we cannot label anyone right or wrong.
As it is evident, there are clearly two sides of this story.
Giving the right to end somebody’s life legally is a humongous responsibility and a liability in itself. It can have serious repercussions we cannot imagine. Authorities are not only at severe risk of being falsely harassed, but there is also the danger of this permission being misused.
If we go by Hindu culture and mythology, it is a known fact that giving life and taking somebody’s life is in God’s hand and should be exercised exclusively by him. Moreover, when the act of suicide is still considered a crime in India, there will be obvious reservations regarding giving another person the right to take someone’s life, irrespective of any situation.
But, here emerges the condition of morality and dignity. Where on the one hand, it is morally correct to relieve a dying ailing person of their unbearable pain and hardships by simply helping them die, there’s also the matter of dignity to life and death. A person has the right to die with dignity and should not be forced to beg for death if, for them, living is worse than death.
Though passive euthanasia does not directly empower somebody to kill a patient, it does indirectly leave loopholes unattended where misuse and deliberate measures can be undertaken in bad faith.
It is a good measure and decision if the authorities take full responsibility of a genuine plea for mercy killing every time the patients request it, and when there is no chance of any intended murder happening under the garb of passive euthanasia. But, if there is any chance that the judiciary or the authorities may fail in ensuring a legal and justified mercy killing, it can create havoc while inflicting unadulterated and irreversible damage to the society.