I am tempted to again get into the
confusing and controversial concept of rights. The right to live does not
automatically confer the right to die because birth and death are not part of
one's rights. You cannot be born when, how and where you wish and this should
be applied equally to death as well. But, the stretch between birth and death
namely life that is, the way of living is somehow considered your right. You
cannot be dictated as to how you should live. Therefore, the right to live with
dignity or otherwise cannot be stretched to include a right to live or die. I
am also of the opinion that a “living will" which is quite legal for your
property, is not acceptable for euthanasia. Writing a will is legal for the
wealth acquired by you but not to end your life which is not acquired by you and hence not your right! That
is why suicide is not legal. . When suicide for a specific reason by an
individual is not permitted how can we have death penalty? A judge is also a
human and is therefore likely to err in judgement. How can the judgement of a
death sentence be accepted which cannot be reverted after execution? Any
punishment is often said to deter the punished from repeating the crime. If he
is hanged to death how can it be a deterrent to him? I have never heard of a
death sentence deterring others from committing that crime. Even accidents
which kill people, fail in a country like India to deter people from driving
without obeying rules. A harsh life imprisonment if fully implemented may deter
some people. Same arguments of right to death have been raised for euthanasia
and it has so far not been permitted in many countries including those which
punish criminals with death sentences. But those who have seen the sufferings
of terminally ill patients, who have no chance of recovery, will definitely
agree to euthanasia. If at all, a law
for euthanasia is to be enacted, the most important class should be that the
individual to be euthanized is above the prevalent maximum age of over 10% of
the population. It may vary. Now, it can be fixed as eighty years in countries
like India. Just as the government fixed frequently the prevailing market value
of several things like land, an expert committee could decide on this from time
to time and passive euthanasia may be permissible for those above this age
subject to conditions. Let us not pass a law for euthanasia without thorough
analysis on different counts. I ventured writing this because recently I read
about this in the editorial column of a reputed Indian Newspaper.
No comments:
Post a Comment