Perspective on Euthanasia

The Supreme Court has handed out the judgment for a passive euthanasia to take place. It is truly a remarkable judgment which is to work until there is a proper legislation. Aruna Shaubag has been suffering for the last 37 years in a hospital in Mumbai and there is no hope for recovery. The Supreme Court has given the order that active euthanasia should not be given, but a passive one, which takes more time and does not use venoms to do the work. The Court has also laid down strict guidelines for the High Court to follow in any cast that may arise for euthanasia.

Euthanasia has always been a topic where everyone is divided. Some think it is killing a person, while others believe it to be relieving. However, the legislation has been entirely silent about the whole issue. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which gives right to life has been defined in so many ways that it covers any topic which may arise relating to life. Yet, the woeful thing about it is that it does not give this right to the people. Only the Courts have the power to interpret it. This raises the question of the other Fundamental Right of Freedom. What freedom do we have if we do not define the right to life by our self?

A separate Commission should be set out for this purpose for which a particular time limit should be set in which the decision needs to be given. There should be no appeal from this commission, and nor there should be any lawyers in it. It should be made of common men, elected for the purpose from around the country differently each time. This would ensure that the right is given to us, and is defined on humanitarian terms. The Courts are not apt to decide the cases for mercy killing, and so it should be left to the person who wants it, and other people to decide for the purpose.