 |
| Aruna Shanbaug |
NEW DELHI, AFP: India’s Supreme Court ruled on Monday that life support can be legally removed for some terminally ill patients in a ruling that will allow “passive euthanasia” for the first time.
The judgement came during a hearing into the case of former nurse Aruna Shanbaug, who has been in a vegetative state in a Mumbai hospital since being raped and strangled with a chain while at work 37 years ago.
A plea by journalist and friend Pinki Virani to stop her being force-fed was rejected by India’s top court on the grounds that Virani was unable to make the demand on Shanbaug’s behalf. But doctors and nurses could petition to withdraw life support, provided the request was supervised by the courts, a two-judge bench in the Supreme Court ruled in a highly complex judgement.
“Active euthanasia is illegal,” the court ruled, referring to the process of doctors ending a patient’s life with lethal medication. “Passive euthanasia is permissible, but it should be done under the supervision of the High Court.”
Virani filed the case in the Supreme Court in 1999 asking for Shanbaug to be allowed to die with dignity. Both of Shanbaug’s parents have died and other family members have not maintained contact with her, according to the petition.
“Death in certain conditions can be allowed, only if life support, nutrition or water is removed,” Shubhangi Tulli, Virani’s lawyer, explained to reporters outside the court after the ruling.
“It is for doctors to decide whether passive euthanasia can be allowed.”
Shanbaug is bed-ridden, blind and in a vegetative state, according to doctors who examined her as part of the Supreme Court case.
She has spent three-and-half decades being fed mashed food and cared for by a team of doctors and nurses.
Friends says she is now mostly still. Previous bouts of screaming and shouting — which occurred despite her being in a vegetative state — have subsided with age.
Her attacker, a ward boy at the hospital, was freed after a seven-year jail sentence.
Lawyer TR Andhyarujina, who was an adviser to the Supreme Court in the case, told AFP it was the first time there had been a ruling on euthanasia by the top court.
“The court has accepted the withdrawal of a life support system, but has not given the permission to inject any lethal substance,” he explained.
Indian laws do not permit euthanasia or self-starvation to the point of death, although fasting is a part of Indian culture, made famous by independence leader Mahatma Gandhi.
Gandhi vowed to go on hunger strikes until death several times in protest against British rule.
The only exception to the law on self-starvation is the religious practice of “santhara,” which sees elderly believers from India’s minority Jain religion give up food and water until death.
The custom of santhara is currently under judicial scrutiny after human rights activist Nikhil Soni approached the High Court in the city of Jaipur in 2006 calling for a ban on the 2000-year-old practice.
Laws on euthanasia or assisted suicide, in which patients are helped by doctors to end their own lives, vary across the world.
In Europe, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Belgium have legalised it under strict conditions, while in Switzerland a doctor can provide a patient who wants to die with lethal medication that the patient takes by him or herself.
In 1994, the US state of Oregon became the first in the country to legalise euthanasia for certain terminally ill patients. Since then more than 500 Oregonians have decided to end their days with medical assistance.
The state of Montana has also legalised it and the east coast state of Vermont is considering a law.
As christian what will be our answer to this case? Should we allow euthanasia? or do we consider as suicide?
ReplyDeleteMy Perspective.
There are many questions that you will not find direct answer from the Bible. Euthanasia is one of the hardest thing to make decision. Let me point out two views on this. This case has to deal with Christians ethics or Christians moral issue. Euthanasia is also called Mercy killing. It means instead of suffering better to kill or take his/her life. Those people who believed in situation ethics would say it depends on the situation. For instance if you know that a person will not survive anymore but you can still see his heart beat, situation ethics people would say better to die so that he will no longer bear the pain. On the other hand absolutist people, who base their faith and belief in the Bible would say No way! Life is a precious gift from God, made in the image of God and taking someone life is murder.
Well I believed we are still absolutist who believe whatever the Bible says. Mercy killing sounds good instead of suffering but for me it is still murdering. We have no right to take someone's life! Moreover in euthanasia people kill themselves. They are assist by doctors and nurses but the main killing is done by themselves. (According to documentary movie). In this case it is suicide for Christians. Taking there own life just because they wanted to die? In Christ, We wanted to save people from physical death as well as Spiritual death.
Sometimes patient are discharge from the hospital because of no hope. This situation is different from Euthanasia. Those discharged patient did not kill themselves but we tried our best to help them out.
As Christians I disagree with the practice of Euthanasia. No matter what happen to a person, never assist someone to take their own life. Jesus came to save us, He healed the sick, he raise the death, the blind can see He came to give us life. Let's Love Jesus and appreciate even one moment of our life and let's save life for Jesus. God created us and our life belongs to him. We belongs' to Jesus.
D.Ralsun
I dek sei thei de aw. Thalai inkhawm ah lem chu thu i hril rawn hmel naw khop el. hehe.. No offence please.
ReplyDeletethe issue of euthanasia and death penalty eventhough legalised in several countries is still an issue subjective and hotly debated the world over. Those against it are of the view that it is unnatural and hence unmoral, basing on the premise that the course of life is something beyond the limit of humans to influence . In other words, life in not created by humans , therefore, it is not just for humans to take a life. And then, we have the 'rights groups' on the other side of this divide with the argument that 'if humans have the right to live, so do we the right to die'. And since it is the duty of the state to create a condition wherein people can exercise their rights freely,therefore, it is expected of the state that it be legalize.
ReplyDeleteAthough the issue is within the realms of morality or ethics yet a particular decision on it will necessarily have great significance and bearing on the life of people. Hence, the 'state' will always act in accordance with the prevailing mood of the public or to be specific in its own interest. The very fact that it has been rejected by the SC means Indians are yet to be ready to live with it. One could see the absurdity of the so-called morality followed by the state here. What should be always noted is that the moral code followed by states does not always coincide with the morality we are well aware of. Otherwise, i for one, does not see the need to differentiate between euthanasia and death penalty. If we can legalize death penalty then why not euthanasia Or vice-versa ? "The rarest of the rarest case" is not an argument convincing enough to squeesh the life out of somebody..