The Supreme Court of India today gave a judgment today that is being hailed as a 'landmark'.. The judgment allows for passive Euthanasia i.e withholding medical treatment or food in extreme cases where a patient is in a 'Permanent Vegetative State'. Aruna Shanbaug, the victim in the case, was brutally sodomized and then strangled 37 years ago and has been in a 'vegetative state' since then. She cannot move or express herself or so much as swallow properly, she's been taken care of by the medical staff at a hospital in Bombay for all these years.
This is what the medical experts and the court have said about Aruna : (full text of judgment )
The court has given certain criteria to decide whether passive euthanasia may be allowed. that includes the opinion of the team of doctors tending to the patient as well as the opinion of a panel of doctors created by the high court of the state, the judgment also says that the relatives or next friends of the patient must file a plea for the approval of withdrawal of treatment with the High court before such an act can be undertaken.
the judgment has stirred a hornet's nest of debate, both legal and moral. the crux lies in the question whether anyone has the right to decide whether a person may live, and whether current medical standards can trump hope of future miracles.. also involved is the question whether this decision making power may be misused by unscrouplous relatives and easily bought doctors to deny treatment to people who wouldn't legitimately come within the ambit of 'permanent vegetative state' or a 'coma'.
most importantly, the judgment makes a clear distinction between brain death, coma and Permanent vegetative state.
while i'm in no position to make any kind of informed comment on the judgment itself, there are quite a lot of unnerving things about the entire euthanasia debate, least of all being, what would I do if faced with such a situation.. was talking to a friend who raised this question, and my head has been spinning ever since..
also a question is nagging me, through this whole moralistic posturing thats currently on tv, Pinky Virani, the author who wrote Aruna's biography and filed the plea for euthanasia made this comment "i would like everyone in this country to think about what they would want for themselves if they were in Aruna's situation."
at the end is one last nagging question... i was reading the wikipedia page about the case and what i read was that the man who brutally sodomised and strangled her was actually tried for assault and robbery and not for rape or unnatural sexual offence because the doctors of the hospital, and mind you this is the same hospital where she has been staying for the last 37 years, did not report the sexual assault to 'spare her shame'. i'm wondering if that is the reason the hospital authorities have continued to care for her all these years.. after all, she WAS assaulted while on duty in the hospital and was denied justice coz of the misplaced sense of 'honour' of the doctors..
i can't seem to actually WRITE anything about this case though i've been trying for hours.. there are so many dimensions to it.. i cannot decide whether i'm writing as a law student, or a medical layman, or as a woman or as a person who has watched loved ones waste away with disease and dealt with the aftermath...
i was asked this once.. how would you want to die? waste away in old age/disease or die with dignity /in a blaze of glory while still having all your faculties and strength..
i still don't know the answer i'd choose...
This is what the medical experts and the court have said about Aruna : (full text of judgment )
The court has given certain criteria to decide whether passive euthanasia may be allowed. that includes the opinion of the team of doctors tending to the patient as well as the opinion of a panel of doctors created by the high court of the state, the judgment also says that the relatives or next friends of the patient must file a plea for the approval of withdrawal of treatment with the High court before such an act can be undertaken.
the judgment has stirred a hornet's nest of debate, both legal and moral. the crux lies in the question whether anyone has the right to decide whether a person may live, and whether current medical standards can trump hope of future miracles.. also involved is the question whether this decision making power may be misused by unscrouplous relatives and easily bought doctors to deny treatment to people who wouldn't legitimately come within the ambit of 'permanent vegetative state' or a 'coma'.
most importantly, the judgment makes a clear distinction between brain death, coma and Permanent vegetative state.
while i'm in no position to make any kind of informed comment on the judgment itself, there are quite a lot of unnerving things about the entire euthanasia debate, least of all being, what would I do if faced with such a situation.. was talking to a friend who raised this question, and my head has been spinning ever since..
also a question is nagging me, through this whole moralistic posturing thats currently on tv, Pinky Virani, the author who wrote Aruna's biography and filed the plea for euthanasia made this comment "i would like everyone in this country to think about what they would want for themselves if they were in Aruna's situation."
at the end is one last nagging question... i was reading the wikipedia page about the case and what i read was that the man who brutally sodomised and strangled her was actually tried for assault and robbery and not for rape or unnatural sexual offence because the doctors of the hospital, and mind you this is the same hospital where she has been staying for the last 37 years, did not report the sexual assault to 'spare her shame'. i'm wondering if that is the reason the hospital authorities have continued to care for her all these years.. after all, she WAS assaulted while on duty in the hospital and was denied justice coz of the misplaced sense of 'honour' of the doctors..
i can't seem to actually WRITE anything about this case though i've been trying for hours.. there are so many dimensions to it.. i cannot decide whether i'm writing as a law student, or a medical layman, or as a woman or as a person who has watched loved ones waste away with disease and dealt with the aftermath...
i was asked this once.. how would you want to die? waste away in old age/disease or die with dignity /in a blaze of glory while still having all your faculties and strength..
i still don't know the answer i'd choose...
2 comments:
right to die.
'Right to die' is an age away, as ours is a country that takes a very long time to act because there is excessive red tape before anything actually get through the govt. offices. And what stirs up our media's on a daily basis, doesn't eventually materialize into a change that is very much needed. Our media could be likened to an escort riding on from one story to the next without actually sticking to one cause. In the end we are just voyeurs if we don't act up.
Secondly, Sorry to hear what you've been through. Maybe this is not the right time to post a reply to this post but it connects. I can empathize here having seen someone close gasping for his last breath right before my eyes. 'life-force' i theorize. However unlike u, i was saved the pain of watching it happen slow. That must have been devastating. Anyway.. the fundamental reason you don't choose to answer that question is because, we all are inherently scared of death. any1 you ask may prefer the second option because we are all hopeful of a peaceful end irrespective of whether its happens or not. Only that its inevitable and we will come to terms with that someday. Maybe, it breaks your bubble of a 'happily everafter' life that u have pictured or the futility of trying to make life work, inspite of the end thats certain. But then, its a very long journey and there's lot worth discovering.
Last of all, u write well. :)
Keep posting. ^_^
Post a Comment