Money or dignity: Euthanasia debate caught between two extremes

With the Supreme Court on Wednesday issuing a notice to all states and Union territories on a plea for legalizing passive euthanasia, the debate has captured headlines again. The debate is largely divided on two opinions – moral and legal.

“Doctors have to be protected from lawsuits like culpable homicide. In many cases they are not sure whether to pull the the plug in case of hopeless patients. There is a purely legal argument in support of euthanasia. Why should a heart and lung machine be blocked if the person has no chance getting back to good health ever? The machine can be used for someone else who has real chance of survival,” Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan told Headlines Today during a panel discussion.

Senior journalist and activist John Dayal, who is staunchly against euthanasia, felt that no one has the right to take away life except for God.

“The right to live does not have a flip side. Right to live does not mean there is a right to die. To decide someone should die only because someone is not curable is not correct. This decision is beyond courts and Parliament and best left for the gods. Man should not play God. No one can wish their birth and no one should wish for death,” Dayal said.

Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju, who had delivered a landmark judgement on passive euthanasia, gave practical reasons in support of it.

“Who is going to pay for expenses for the patients if they are in a comatic state forever? There has to be a practical view and the life support system should be withdrawn. There are huge costs involved to keep a person on heart and lung machine. The family will go bankrupt. To avoid any kind of misuse, the high court has been involved. The high court will consult a panel of three doctors before the life support system is taken off in case of passive euthanasia,” Katju said.

Bhushan also felt that passive euthanasia is a forward step.

“When a person cannot decide for himself or herself, the next of kin or the guardian can decide in favour of passive euthanasia. Why should the person suffer torture in the name of treatment if he or she cannot be cured? I am also in favour of active euthanasia or else the suffering of the person would prolong… I am also open for a living will and a person can decide on his own what the next should be if he goes into an irretrievable comatic state in future ,” the Supreme Court lawyer said.

However, the former Supreme Court judge was against active euthanasia but did support living will.

“Someone can decide for oneself in a living will that he may not use life support system if the treatment is not fruitful. But I am not in favour of active euthanasia as there are possibilities of a wrongdoing,” Katju said.

The activist participating in the discussion observed that all the argument is limited to the monetary aspect.

“Human dignity is a complex thing. All the arguments are only limited to the exchequer. I am against living wills morally and ethically. A person may not be in the right frame of mind while deciding all that. All these steps on euthanasia are morally reprehensible and not acceptable,” Dayal said.