So, we are having a national debate on whether we should let Aruna Shanbaug 'live' or not....
I remember supporting Euthanasia in every debate, because I was under the impression that Euthanasia encompasses a person's right to choose his/her own death, essentially free will which nobody should interfere with.
Today, when I googled it, I found it classified into three types. As per an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, 'Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life', " Euthanasia can take three forms: voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary. Euthanasia is voluntary when it is carried out at the request of the person killed. Sometimes this may be scarcely distinguishable from assisted suicide; other times people wanting to die may be physically incapable of killing themselves. Euthanasia is involuntary when the person killed is capable of consenting to her own death but does not do so. Euthanasia is non-voluntary when the subject is unable to consent: for instance, because she is a severely handicapped infant, or because she is an irreversibly comatose adult who has omitted to specify previously how she wished to be treated in such an eventuality."
Another essay in Ethics in Practice: An Anthology gives a much more personal description about the kinds of Euthanasia, "Suppose I ask you to either kill me or let me die should my condition get so bad that I am delirious and wont recover. If you then comply with my request, we have what is commonly called Voluntary Euthanasia. Now suppose that I slip into an irreversible coma without ever telling anyone, whether I wanted to be killed in such circumstances. If I am then killed or let die, we have what is commonly called Non-Voluntary Euthanasia.But, what if I do express a desire not to be killed no matter how bad my condition gets. Then killing me would constitute what is called Involuntary Euthanasia.
Thank God we are dealing with Non-Voluntary euthanasia for now, and not the Involuntary one! Else, I would have been compelled to believe that we have turned into cold-blooded monsters from the cold-hearted, apathetic, silent observers, which we are currently.
There exists a very fine line of difference between Non-Voluntary and Involuntary killings executed in the name of 'Mercy Killings'. Who decides if the coma is 'irreversible', who decides if the patient would have wanted such a fate, should she be capable of giving her consent. Can we conveniently decide that the verdict given under the purview of the current scope of medical science, with respect to a person's medical condition is irrefutable and final. Can we claim with absolute certainty that Aruna Shanbaugh does not have a trace of human feelings left within her when she 'relishes fish and occasionally smiles when she is given non-vegetarian food' or when it appears as though 'she likes listening to songs by Sadguru and grimaces if the tape records were switched off '....
Who exactly are we to decide that Aruna Shanbaug should not live beyond this point...that there is no fighting spirit alive in a faintest corner of her existence...that she should die with 'dignity'?
I remember supporting Euthanasia in every debate, because I was under the impression that Euthanasia encompasses a person's right to choose his/her own death, essentially free will which nobody should interfere with.
Today, when I googled it, I found it classified into three types. As per an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, 'Buddhism, euthanasia and the sanctity of life', " Euthanasia can take three forms: voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary. Euthanasia is voluntary when it is carried out at the request of the person killed. Sometimes this may be scarcely distinguishable from assisted suicide; other times people wanting to die may be physically incapable of killing themselves. Euthanasia is involuntary when the person killed is capable of consenting to her own death but does not do so. Euthanasia is non-voluntary when the subject is unable to consent: for instance, because she is a severely handicapped infant, or because she is an irreversibly comatose adult who has omitted to specify previously how she wished to be treated in such an eventuality."
Another essay in Ethics in Practice: An Anthology gives a much more personal description about the kinds of Euthanasia, "Suppose I ask you to either kill me or let me die should my condition get so bad that I am delirious and wont recover. If you then comply with my request, we have what is commonly called Voluntary Euthanasia. Now suppose that I slip into an irreversible coma without ever telling anyone, whether I wanted to be killed in such circumstances. If I am then killed or let die, we have what is commonly called Non-Voluntary Euthanasia.But, what if I do express a desire not to be killed no matter how bad my condition gets. Then killing me would constitute what is called Involuntary Euthanasia.
Thank God we are dealing with Non-Voluntary euthanasia for now, and not the Involuntary one! Else, I would have been compelled to believe that we have turned into cold-blooded monsters from the cold-hearted, apathetic, silent observers, which we are currently.
There exists a very fine line of difference between Non-Voluntary and Involuntary killings executed in the name of 'Mercy Killings'. Who decides if the coma is 'irreversible', who decides if the patient would have wanted such a fate, should she be capable of giving her consent. Can we conveniently decide that the verdict given under the purview of the current scope of medical science, with respect to a person's medical condition is irrefutable and final. Can we claim with absolute certainty that Aruna Shanbaugh does not have a trace of human feelings left within her when she 'relishes fish and occasionally smiles when she is given non-vegetarian food' or when it appears as though 'she likes listening to songs by Sadguru and grimaces if the tape records were switched off '....
Who exactly are we to decide that Aruna Shanbaug should not live beyond this point...that there is no fighting spirit alive in a faintest corner of her existence...that she should die with 'dignity'?
