Understanding Euthanasia: Difference between revisions
Article |
Article |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<h1 style="text-align:center">'''UNDERSTANDING EUTHANESIA''' = | |||
== INTRODUCTION: == | |||
''"One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly."'' | |||
~ Friedrich Nietzsche | |||
Over the years this discourse evolved and has formulated two different kinds of euthanasia narratives and different countries based on their policies have adopted either. | The above mentioned quote suggests the notion of living with pride and a sense of human dignity and thereafter the concept of choosing one’s own end willingly knowing its time. This concept is defined as “Euthanasia” in contemporary times. The English philosopher Sir Francis Bacon coined the phrase “euthanasia” early in the 17th century. Euthanasia is derived from the Greek word ''eu'', meaning “good” and ''thanatos'' meaning “death,” and early on signified a “good” or “easy” death. Basically when a person ends his life by own act it is called suicide, but when it is by way of others especially requested by the person deceased, it is called Euthanasia. | ||
Euthanasia is mainly associated with terminally ill people, or people in incapacitated or vegetative state who do not wish to go through their rest of the life, suffering and surviving on heavy doses of medicine. Euthanasia is a controversial issue as it encompasses the ethics, morals and belief systems of our society. It leads to the legal debate of whether a person having a legal right to live, should also have the right to self-destruction or death, basically a debate on right to die. | |||
== ACTIVE V. PASSIVE EUTHANASIA: == | |||
Over the years this discourse evolved and has formulated two different kinds of euthanasia narratives and different countries based on their policies have adopted either. | |||
1. Active Euthanasia: it is the practice that involves specific steps to cause the patient’s death, it is an active action like injecting a lethal dose of medication or substance that causes death to the patient. It is legal in a few countries like Belgium and Netherlands where it is allowed under strict conditions. However, many international jurisdictions consider it equivalent to murder or manslaughter, as there is a moral distinction between killing and letting die; moreover, it raises concern on role of medical professionals in causing death. | |||
<ol start="2"> | <ol start="2"> | ||
| Line 24: | Line 34: | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
To look into deeper aspect of the issue, we must analyse both sides of this coin carefully.</ | == ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: == | ||
To look into deeper aspect of the issue, we must analyse both sides of this coin carefully. | |||
*<u>Arguments in favour of euthanasia</u>: if we weigh the social values with the individual interest then we will clearly see that here the interest of the individual will outweigh the interest of the society. The society aims at interest of the individuals rather it is made with the purpose of assuring a dignified and a peaceful life to all. Euthanasia relieves the terminally ill people from a lingering death. It not only relives the unbearable pain of a patient but also relieves the relatives of a patient from the mental agony. | |||
<ol start="2"> | <ol start="2"> | ||
| Line 40: | Line 53: | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
INDIAN LEGAL SCENARIO: | == INDIAN LEGAL SCENARIO: == | ||
The law in India is very clear to these aspects of assisted suicide, right to suicide is not an available “right” in India, and is punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Provision of punishing suicide is contained in sections 305 , 306 and 309 of the said Code. Section 309, IPC has been brought under the scanner with regard to its constitutionality. There was also a debate between the concept of article 21: which grants all Indians the right to life, whether it is inclusive of the right to die as well or not. This was investigated by a panel of Constitution Bench in case of ''Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab.'' The judgement pronounced the ideal that the fundamental right to life enshrined by article 21 of the constitution, does not encompass the “right to die”. | |||
However, the judgment of our Supreme Court in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India opened the gateway for legalization of passive euthanasia. The patient was in a Persistent Vegetative State and virtually a dead person and had no state of awareness and her brain was virtually dead. Supreme Court established a committee for medical examination of the patient for ascertaining the issue, at the end the Court dismissed the petition on behalf of Shanbaug and allowed for passive euthanasia under rare cases of medical exceptions. | |||
== CONCLUSION: == | |||
The | The current scenario in India, enables patients in P.V.S. or Persistent Vegetative State to claim Passive Euthanasia because of the Shanbaug case, understanding euthanasia laws stems not only as a matter of legality but also understanding various cultural backgrounds of it. | ||
</ | <!-- | ||
NewPP limit report | |||
Cached time: 20240630191317 | |||
Cache expiry: 86400 | |||
Reduced expiry: false | |||
Complications: | |||
CPU time usage: 0.002 seconds | |||
Real time usage: 0.002 seconds | |||
Preprocessor visited node count: 4/1000000 | |||
Post‐expand include size: 0/2097152 bytes | |||
Template argument size: 0/2097152 bytes | |||
Highest expansion depth: 1/100 | |||
Expensive parser function count: 0/100 | |||
Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 | |||
Unstrip post‐expand size: 0/5000000 bytes | |||
--><!-- | |||
Transclusion expansion time report | |||
100.00% 0.000 1 -total | |||
--><!-- Saved in parser cache with key aklcwuks_wiki-wiki_:pcache:idhash:248413-0!canonical and timestamp 20240630191317 and revision id 388879. Rendering was triggered because: edit-page | |||
--> | |||
[[Category:Article]] | [[Category:Article]] | ||