Sunday, 7 September 2014


By: Team PenTastic
 [ Written and compiled by Dibyasha Mohanty ]

‘For that which is born, death is certain,
and for the dead, birth is certain.
Therefore, grieve not over what is unavoidable’
                                   -thus goes the categorial imperative of Bhagavad Gita.

But is the willful killing of a human an interference in the spontaneous process of life and death? There’s more to it besides religion. Minister Harsh Vardhan’s call for a concensus on Euthanasia has triggered a much-needed debate on the ethical and legal obligations associated with the issue. The divisive public controversy over it seems to be a never ending one,but it’s high time we revise our perspective to include the broader meaning of life. Because human life is precious,indeed too precious to drag on helplessly with false hopes and a paralyzed body. The Supreme Court Judgement legalizing  passive euthanasia( withdrawal  of medical treatment for a patient of terminal illness) is a fillip in the right direction.

Fallaciously coined as ‘murder’,euthanasia, I feel, is the  right prescription for endless misery and forced suffering associated with incurable ailment. It is the ultimate panacea for a situation when lack of justifiable means of recovery precedes a suo motu desire in the patient to end his life. All religious and legal arguments that differ with the  above  are no grounds on which the patient and family should be conscripted to suffer a long and painful demise. The  case becomes all the more critical for cash-strapped families which are pushed further below the poverty line by life-support expenses of the ailing member. Legalizing of PAS(Physician Assisted Suicide) guarantees patient’s autonomy of life when palliative care fails to deliver.

However, no remedy is absolute. The practice of euthanasia is`vulnerable to counter-examples such as killing an ailing patient (suffering from an incurable disease) for personal gains (say, claim to inheritance); thus such concerns for misuse need to be addressed before legalizing active euthanasia. Proponents of PAS feel an individual’s right to autonomy automatically  entitles  him to choose a painless death.

Mental  health professionals must adequately evaluate the psychological state of patients requesting for death and ensure that the desire does mot arise out of insufficient palliative care and guilt of being a burden on family (for the care and expense they require); as such predicaments can be dealt with by government intervention.Also other measures for relief should have been exhausted and sufficient medical advice should have been consulted lest the patient is ‘physically curable but clinically  depressed’.

The evolution of medical science has gifted us with prolonged life, but this should not prolong terminal suffering. Modern moral sensibility teaches us to allow people to die peacefully and with dignity by a humane comprehension of their plight. Imagine the anguish and helplessness when your ability to do the basic things in life is compromised. Besides India being  a developing nation, appropriate provisions should be made for the de rigueus diversion of medical resources to those who need them the most.

So we put this the question up for all our readers. Does taking a life account for a killing even if it means to release a soul from the unbearable lifeless life ? Should we, a race driven by reason, take up the religion of no- reason ? Or should we, grant a person, who has the right to his birth, his RIGHT TO DEATH ? Bring forth your voices and your reasons.


  1. in my opinion,euthanasia should definitely be legalized.as every person has a right to live,he or she also has a right to die.it is better to die peacefully than living in a vegetative condition.yes there are chances of misuse but that does not mean it should be considered as a sin.it should totally depend upon that individual.

  2. We often talk about our birth rights. As rightly pointed here, we once in a while are reminded of the significance of a person's right to death. Consider a situation where a person lies on the bed in coma for more 20 years continuously being of no use to his family or even himself instead being a burden on all others, or a girl from a small town who suffers immense pain to the extent of blindness when attacked by a group of guys with concentrated acid, for being determined to attend her school in a class of all boys. Do these people, who were unfortunate enough to not get a chance to live a life, not at least deserve a death that is dignified ? I say they do. Religion never says to prolong the pain of a body and a mind. Religion never says to deny a person his right to a painless life. Then why not grant him a painless death ? Of course, there will be some undesired consequences to it, as is to every thing in this world. A careful monitoring of the person, by the doctors and of the case of the person by the court, shall help. When everything else runs with logic and reason, let this too.

  3. in my opinion,euthanasia should be definitely legalized in India,as every person has a right to live,they also have a right to death.it is better to die than living as a vegetable.it cannot be considered as murder or a sin if it wholly depends upon that individual.yes there are chances of misuse,but in most of the cases it is the need of the hour

  4. I think it should only be done with the suffering individual's consent only..only and only if the individual wants to put an end to his/her endless suffering..Without his/her permission,performing this euthanasia is more like a murder..nothing else!

    1. There are cases when the patient himself is in a vegetative state and unable decide for himself.Brain has stopped working but heart is kept functional by medical equipments.It is then the decision of the doctor and family whether they want to keep the patient alive ,like a lifeless zombie.

    2. yeah..i forgot to mention that.If that is the case,then choosing death over life will probably be the best decision.But the MISUTILISATION THING must be strictly precluded!

  5. Euthanasia is a much awaited legal option in our country. This issue is quite sensitive but I am glad this topic has been brought forth in the blog. I too agree to the fact of mercy-killing. Because if there is no scope of survival without external support then its better to release the person out of this endless pain and sadness.But one has to be careful when it comes to practice in the country. Because it might be misutilised at times for unlawful acts. Active euthanasia can be dangerous but that does not mean it should not be allowed.
    Mercy-killing at times helps to release a innocent person from continuous long term pain that can never be reduced.So with proper rules and court orders and permission of doctors and medical authorities euthanasia can be preferred.

  6. Euthanasia is a personal preference which should be totally free of will, just like any other life choices. I have seen a really dear one almost wring day in and out in pain for a span of 21 years! Nor was he allowed to die neither could medic help him devoid of pain :/. I myself at tented to one of his distressed situations! I have seen the horror the pain very close! I would necessarily call for euthanasia if something like that happens to me!

    Basically it is not the suffering. It is span of suffering which is really depressing. We see euthanasia as taking thyself life. But seeing it as releasing thyself of pain would give us a better picture.

    I have seen the horror close! I feel euthanasia should be legalised; lest it should have been legalised long ago! At least my dear ones sufferings would have shortened it's span!

  7. Yep!.. Euthanasia should be legalized I think, but as the chances of it being misutilized is very high, especially in inheritance related matters, great care should be taken, that the person has absolutely nil percentage chance of surviving before taking this ultimate decision.

  8. I believe in self satisfaction. So it's up to me Whetter I will live or die. So it should be there in the law to grant death to someone if he/she is willing to die at the critical hours.

  9. There is a lot of controversy surrounding the issue of euthanasia and whether or not it should be legal. Arguments regarding the euthanasia debate often depend on the method used to take the life of the patient.The Oregon Death with Dignity Act made it legal for residents to request a lethal injection from a doctor. This is seen in other jurisdictions as being a criminal form of homicide. However, passive euthanasia through denial of drugs or procedures is considered to be legal in almost all jurisdictions
    Many arguments also hinge on religious beliefs. Many Christians believe that taking a life, for any reason, is interfering with God's plan and is comparable to murder
    If living means I have to be hooked up on life-support machines for months and months, then I would rather die.” However, refusing treatment in this case is not euthanasia.
    If you have cancer, and you refuse another painful chemotherapy session, and then you die, the cause of death is the cancer, not the doctor or yourself.
    We call it euthanasia when your doctor or someone else intentionally causes your death, before your death is caused naturally by disease or by old age.

    1. Thank you for commenting. It was detailed and so well-researched, briefing about passive euthanasia and other minute details. :)

  10. ya it should be implemented but with certain rules and constraints to ensure complete transparency so that the law is not misused

  11. Granting Euthanasia is a highly subjective matter, that can be debated day in and day out. Firstly we should not get carried away by a movie like 'Munna Bhai MBBS' that shows a person lying in vegetative state and awakening after 20years ,it was just a farce something that is not proved by medical science (as miracles are mostly associated with fiction).

    In my opinion a person in vegetative state can be kept in that way for utmost 2 years (if you even hope for some miracle to happen) but beyond that chances of any miracle are highly improbable and life support should be withdrawn then, as the family has accepted it too that a person has to move on...so keeping the individual on life support becomes nothing less than a burden on the family (where chances of survival are highly minute).Not only that a person in his death can be profound too that to by donating his organs ,that can save many more lives ,ie :he lives in them, as his heart is still beating in others, his eyes still colour the world of another.
    But Right to death should not be legalised as that would also lead to massive suicide spree in highly healthy beings for the pettiest of reasons, a depressed soul instead of going for medication , would rather prefer ending his life (which is ghastly).
    So in my opinion a person should have a 'right to live' but 'the right to die' can thoroughly backfire, euthanasia can be validated only if the person doesn't recover from his vegetative state even after 2 to 3 years of proper medication.

  12. Thank you all for participating in this 'counter-it!' session and pouring in your views for or against this issue that calls for the attention of people, of reason and of empathy for those who are suffering. The session now ends, but those who want to present their views are still welcome, anytime. Thank you! Stay tuned for the next session !

  13. I believe legalizing Euthnasia would be the right thing to do. However, this should be done only after a proper framework is created by the Government, where in an independent committee properly investigates the case and carefully documents the circumstances. Only after doing this the committee authorizes the practice.

  14. actually the name if simplified is mercy death or giving one freedom to die as per as his/her will.
    Just think a situation , may God prevent that , One of your loved one is suffering from a state of mentally dead but alive or a state of chronic pain and an incorrigible disease and one knows that the pain will end with his life and his gill to live will die gradually and the thing that will just rise is the pain ans sorrow. then is it not fair to grant him his death is a peACEFUL and PAINLESS manner rather than a still painful life..

    yes actually it is a good and moral approach . There are many situations where one could not see the pain but is restricted and hopeless. Should only GOD has the right to take ones life and if we have right to live then slould also have right for a peaceful death , if one is void of prior one then should definitely holds the right to die peacefully

    but care and a top class regulation is required to pass it as if in wrong hands it can be a wand of havoc for the ake of humanity and will open the way for a legal genocide
    if done in a proper , efficient and altruistic manner it is a hand for humanity else you may just imagine,,,,,,,,,,

  15. In my opinion, laws against euthanasia will definitely prevent people from the devious doctors.
    If euthanasia will be made legal in our country then, the unscrupulous doctors will run away from their duties of improving the quality of life of the people suffering from the life threatening diseases as they will consider euthanasia above treatment.

  16. Stating my point of view, I am completely for the legalization of Euthanasia because that's what it says! - Mercy killing, Die in a moment rather than dying every moment and keep on bearing the unendurable pain.