c


   
There are many people in this world who are suffering every single moment and the worst part is that
nothing can be done to end their suffering. For those ³living dead´ mercy killing or euthanasia is
nothing less of a boon. For people who are in vegetative state for more than ten years or people who
are quadriplegic (paralytic from neck down), mercy killing is the only way to end the excruciating
experience that they call life. This leads to the burning question that society faces today: should mercy
killing be legalised?

Recently the ArunaShahbaug case judgement delivered by the Apex court of India has raised one too
many questions regarding euthanasia instead of putting an end to the debate. After two decades of
legal fighting the judgement has rejected the appeal to end Aruna¶s plight by means of mercy killing.
If we look into the issue we find that if mercy killing is allowed then actually we as a society are
taking somebody¶s life. The person in suffering might ask to end his trauma but we don¶t have any
right ethical or moral to oblige him or her. There is capital punishment for somebody convicted for
murder or at least a life term. So we as a civil body can¶t have different standards for judging our acts
based on technicalities. Again, if mercy killing is legalised, people might end up killing their kin for
inheritance or at least such malefic intentions would be harnessed. Again, doctors take an oath to safe
their patient¶s life till the very last breath. Such killings would go against the work ethics of doctors.
Hence the burning question: ³by asserting euthanasia are we legalising murder?´

One major area of concern is the availability of cure. For persons suffering from dreaded diseases like
AIDS, leukaemia and so on cure is somewhere on the horizon. Who will be held responsible or who
would be accountable for a person¶s death when in a worst case scenario a cure is available the very
next morning of a person¶s death?

We all know that we can¶t even start to imagine or feel the pain one endures during such diseases or
conditions and the family of those unfortunate ones also suffer a lot both financially and emotionally.
It is heart breaking to watch your loved one die every passing second in front of your eyes despite
every valiant effort of yours.

There is no end to this debate and governments or civic society cannot enact laws based on one or two
special cases. I think a committee consisting of prominent doctors, politicians and renowned citizens
of a county should review such appeals on case per case basis. If they find substance in any appeal
then they should refer it to the president of the country for final verdict as it is done in the case of
capital punishment.

Taking life is easy but to justify it is way too difficult. Perhaps the justification required for mercy
killing is the prime reason behind the resistance and reluctance it faces across the world. There is no
tailor-made solution for such grave issues but it doesn¶t mean that it should not be debated because
such issues can be resolved only by active participation and indulgence of civil society.

Shah Veeral Paresh