Once again the debate of Euthanasia is alive in the media.Six years before while I was in my first year of engineering at NIT Trichy, the first debate I participated in college was on Mercy Killing. I remember how I vociferously supported for Euthanasia. Today I am enlightened to speak on the topic with little more authority.The very enlightenment has put me in a dilemma.To be frank I am not able to take a firm stand for or against Euthanasia. Any amount of analytical or scientific reasoning fails when questions on life and death are taken, simply because that domain transcends human knowledge. Intricacies of life and death be it on moral, scientific or human rights basis cannot be comprehended or quantified on a tangible basis.
So where does that leave us. Let me try putting in an argument along some sound philosophical arguments. The first approach is that of human rights ie. the right to live or put in more realistic way, right to live with dignity. Right to live does not mean living under inhuman conditions always under the authority and dependence of others. It means ability to live in a dignified manner.This argument puts forward a very significant question.Quarter of Indian population is under abject poverty and lives under totally deplorable and inhuman conditions. When it comes to the question of euthanasia we sharpen our moral swords and fight for human rights while at the same time shun the millions who starve for want of basic livelihood means.
I keep wondering how wonderfully we Indians argue, no wonder Prof.Amartya Sen chose the title of his book- The Argumentative Indian. We have the knack of shifting sides and changing colors faster than a chameleon.Media is going berserk with every possible arguments about Euthanasia. The fate of Aruna Shaunbaug , the hapless nurse who was sodomized and physically assaulted by a pervert attender in the hospital where she had worked has triggered the latest debate.
The second argument is that of Utilitarianism. Yes the very same utilitirianism of Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill that advoates anything good for the majority of population.Now that works for a public policy or something on a mass basis,not for something so personal as choice of life and death. What has the majority public got to do with an individual's choice. A doctor so long as he is paid will treat the patient. The greater good matters only for the close one's of the patient. But which parent would want to give a consent for Euthanasia of their child?
Every stage of human has some kind of consciousness attached with it. An external person can in no way comprehend the level of consciousness.Just because we feel another person undergoes strenuous pain doesn't mean we can truly comprehend his level of pain or cognition. More importantly it is not tangible. Orgasm during sex is a transcedental stage which is at times associated with pain, but that it is something an individual experiences totally irrelevant to a third person.
Well amidst arguments galore what is the road ahead? Should law of the land interfere with something that is totally irrelevant to the greater common good? I feel the court should keep off this sensitive issue simply because it is a matter concerning an individual and his close ones. Legalising Euthanasia in a country like India would lead to a spurt of nefarious activities especially for hereditary property inheritance, remarriage etc.As for Aruna Shanbaug, hats off to the wonderful and dedicated staff of KEM hospital. Instances like these are to be celebrated for social cohesiveness and human bonding. For a moment it reveals the humanistic aspects devoid of any instincts of self maximizing individuals.Let this be an eye opener for mankind to dwell deeper into the existence of ourselves rather than nuance with ideas of law making and wearing the moral cloak.
So where does that leave us. Let me try putting in an argument along some sound philosophical arguments. The first approach is that of human rights ie. the right to live or put in more realistic way, right to live with dignity. Right to live does not mean living under inhuman conditions always under the authority and dependence of others. It means ability to live in a dignified manner.This argument puts forward a very significant question.Quarter of Indian population is under abject poverty and lives under totally deplorable and inhuman conditions. When it comes to the question of euthanasia we sharpen our moral swords and fight for human rights while at the same time shun the millions who starve for want of basic livelihood means.
I keep wondering how wonderfully we Indians argue, no wonder Prof.Amartya Sen chose the title of his book- The Argumentative Indian. We have the knack of shifting sides and changing colors faster than a chameleon.Media is going berserk with every possible arguments about Euthanasia. The fate of Aruna Shaunbaug , the hapless nurse who was sodomized and physically assaulted by a pervert attender in the hospital where she had worked has triggered the latest debate.
The second argument is that of Utilitarianism. Yes the very same utilitirianism of Jeremy Bentham and JS Mill that advoates anything good for the majority of population.Now that works for a public policy or something on a mass basis,not for something so personal as choice of life and death. What has the majority public got to do with an individual's choice. A doctor so long as he is paid will treat the patient. The greater good matters only for the close one's of the patient. But which parent would want to give a consent for Euthanasia of their child?
Every stage of human has some kind of consciousness attached with it. An external person can in no way comprehend the level of consciousness.Just because we feel another person undergoes strenuous pain doesn't mean we can truly comprehend his level of pain or cognition. More importantly it is not tangible. Orgasm during sex is a transcedental stage which is at times associated with pain, but that it is something an individual experiences totally irrelevant to a third person.
Well amidst arguments galore what is the road ahead? Should law of the land interfere with something that is totally irrelevant to the greater common good? I feel the court should keep off this sensitive issue simply because it is a matter concerning an individual and his close ones. Legalising Euthanasia in a country like India would lead to a spurt of nefarious activities especially for hereditary property inheritance, remarriage etc.As for Aruna Shanbaug, hats off to the wonderful and dedicated staff of KEM hospital. Instances like these are to be celebrated for social cohesiveness and human bonding. For a moment it reveals the humanistic aspects devoid of any instincts of self maximizing individuals.Let this be an eye opener for mankind to dwell deeper into the existence of ourselves rather than nuance with ideas of law making and wearing the moral cloak.


