O P Modi
Dictionary meaning of euthanasia is: “The act of killing some one who is very ill or very old so that they do not suffer anymore”. The word comes from Greek. “eu” which means goodly or the good death. In India a law was enacted that permitted passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia became legal here on 7th March 2001 (Passive is “letting a person die”, and active is giving them a lethal injection.) The Supreme Court of India gave a favourable verdict to withdraw the life support in the case of Arruna Shanbaug who had been in a vegetative state for 37 years at King Edward Memorial Hospital. Active euthanasia, including injecting or giving by mouth lethal compounds is still illegal in our country.
The then Indian Law Minister M. Verrapa Moily called for serious political debate over the issue. The following guidelines have been laid down by the Law Ministry:
* A decision has to be taken to discontinue life support either by the parents or the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be taken bonafide in the best interest of the patient.
* Even if a decision is taken by the near relatives or doctors or next friend to withdraw life support, such a decision requires approval from the High Court concerned.
* When such an application is filed the Chief Justice of the High Court should forthwith constitute a Bench of at least two Judges who should decide to grant approval or not. A committee of three reputed doctors to be nominated by the Bench, who will give report regarding the condition of the patient. Before giving the verdict a notice regarding the report should be given to the close relatives and the State. After hearing the parties, the High Court can give its verdict.
While brief history of euthanasia in India has been mentioned above elsewhere it goes like this: Three in four Americans support euthanasia. Because of wide cultural and religious diversity in the United States it is has not been possible to enact a uniform law there. But two states namely Washington and Oregon have recently legalized it.
In UK there is important distinction between English, Welsh and Scottish law. This difference is basically in the passive and active euthanasia.
So far as European Union (EU) is concerned it is deeply divided over the issue. There is no unity as to how it’s terminally ill should be treated. The irony is that there are more elderly persons than the younger ones. In March 2008 when Bulgarian writer Hugo Claus ended his life under medical supervision the EU split on the issue came to fore. In France active euthanasia still remains illegal. Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2002. It was the second EU country to do so after Netherlands.
Luxembourg’s Parliament has voted to legalize euthanasia. Italy too has legalized it, while in Sweden law permits passive euthanasia. In Switzerland assisted euthanasia is still illegal. Spain too has not legalized and in Germany it is taboo because of the Nazi history.
In Japan there is no act or provisos on euthanasia. Therefore problems of euthanasia or “death with dignity” are mainly left by literatures or judicial precedents or interpretations of homicides. In Russia euthanasia is totally prohibited. In November 2011 medics have been completely prohibited from taking any patient’s life despite his or her express wish.
Islamic law does permit the removal of the medical equipment utilized to keep a person alive when it is no longer hoped that such a person will be cured and no progress is being made in the attempt to restore their health–due to being “clinically dead”–only when physicians advise to do so. If, however, the equipment has another purpose, like the removal of fluid to improve respiratory health, it is not permissible to deactivate them. This is different, though, from what is called “euthanasia” wherein the sick person requests from the physician to end their life or when the physician decides that unilaterally due to some handicap that will afflict the sick or because of severe pain. Such decisions are unequivocally unlawful because the sick is still living and their life is not dependent upon the life preserving equipment. Rather, the only concern is that the sick or the physician desires to put an end to life due to the excessive pain experienced by the sick. To end life in such an instance will be considered homicide and a murder of a soul that God has declared sacred. (Religious Authority: Ali Gomma,
Website URL: http// www.aligomma/net/
Fatwa Question or Essay Title: Does Islamic law permit euthanasia for a person who is no longer hoped to be cured from an illness?)
Most Hindus say that a doctor should not accept the request for ending life of a patient because it will mean a bad Karma for both the doctor as well as the patient for which they will be punished. Others say that it cannot be allowed as it breaches the principle of Ahimsa. In fact there is no single view on this issue among the Hindus.
All said and done we must say internationally there is no single view on this issue. The UNO Word Health Organization should debate the issue and a considered view ought to be spelled out by it.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel