Euthanasia: Is it promoting Right to Death

Euthanasia has been one major debatable topic overtime. It has many issues to be considered like moral and ethical values of doctors, human rights issues, various legal procedures and various other issues.Every person in this universe will die some or the other day but the way he dies may differ.The expectations everyone has before they die is to live a happy and fruitful life. Some deaths of them can just be natural death which is usually due to age, as there is a principle that the older you become the weaker you get. Some deaths may arise out of acts like killing oneself and ending their lives forcefully  due to various reasons which is termed as “suicide”. But when a person kills another or ends the life of the deceased on the request of the deceased this is called by the name “euthanasia” or mercy killing in local language. Euthanasia is usually conducted by medical professionals for giving the output of the so called “happy death” or also called death to be relieved from the pain and suffering. Ironically death was always meant to be sad but this transforms it into good death. There are five different types of euthanasia. There are arguments that if a person has the right to life, he should be guaranteed the right to die also, and a person is said to have the right to choose and this should be applicable to what he wants to do with his own life. This also raises an issue related to human rights whether it is favouring it or not. Right to life does not only mean to live but it has a wider concept to live with dignity so there comes a question whether the right to die exists and if it does,  then why shouldn’t one die with dignity without suffering and pain. There are broadly two categories in which euthanasia can be classified, the first one is how the death is caused i.e., passive (death is caused by removing the life supporting system he/she is depending on) or active (death is caused by injecting something

lethal or dangerous) and the second one the acceptance for death or request (consent) for it whether it is voluntary, involuntary and non voluntary. Euthanasia can also be called a privileged murder, but however it is not exception to a murder in some places, it means that this is legal in some places and not in some. Hence it depends on the place it takes place. India has legalised passive euthanasia in the Aruna Shanbaug case, ironically she was’nt given the permission for passive euthanasia however this case laid down the rules and specification where passive euthanasia could be conducted. Personally, I feel that passive euthanasia should not be confused with any other types of euthanasia and should be merely considered as a means to relieve a person from an is an incurable disease and the person exists only because of the life saving equipment and its removal can cause death, and only this should be legalised and not the other types. Euthanasia should be legal in India and other countries with strict rules and regulation, and with proper committees taking care of its implementations, ther has to be adequate safeguards and follow up actions regarding the laws as only then its loopholes are revealed and then correction can be done, there has to be harsher punishments and penalties if invoked. India is one of the nations which has the strongest laws and regulations, we frame them with so much care including each intrinsic detail, but we tend to have a very weak follow up action on our laws, hence it is misused. I would like to bring the topic of doctors and if they are going against the Hippocratic Oath, yes, they are going against it but this is done for the well being of the patient. Many may think that can doctors misuse this whole legislation, we should understand one thing here i.e. we are believing the judge and letting him give a death sentence to the criminals and in the same way we should trust the doctor and put hope in them that whatever they do is for the welfare of the patient, hence when it comes to the decision of granting death we should assume that they would do the best for the patient. Stronger the legislation, lesser the problems regarding it. At a conclusion there are always two sides to anything, in the same way some may think that euthanasia is morally justified as it is to free someone from the suffering and unbearable pain, on the other side some tell that the sanctity of life cannot be justified if death is not natural and one does not go through the hard times, therefore this is a non-ending debate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s