Should Euthanasia be legalised?

(This essay won the second prize for the Dharam S. Hinduja essay writing competition among faculty members of University of Mumbai. More than the prize, I am happy that the issue has been appreciated)

~ This life in us; however low it flickers or fiercely burns, is still a divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives never so humane and enlightened; To suppose otherwise is to countenance a death-wish; Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other~   

Malcolm Muggeridge

The smooth-sounding long word ‘Euthanasia’ conceals within it the jeopardy of the end of social relationships, behind a hideous veil of compassion. A popular definition of euthanasia which has been adopted by Healthcare Opposed to Euthanasia (HOPE) is as follows: ‘Euthanasia is the intentional killing by act or omission of a person whose life is considered not to be worth living.’ A well-accepted term for euthanasia is “mercy-killing”, which could be of two types: “voluntary euthanasia”—which in other words means “assisted suicide”—whereby the death happens at the overt request of the patient and “involuntary euthanasia” in which the procedure for death takes place due to someone else’s decision since the patient is incapable to give consent. It is fundamental to understand that euthanasia, voluntary or involuntary, is intentional killing. The former case is akin to suicide and the latter to murder.

I would argue my case against euthanasia using a three-fold premise. Firstly, by understanding the issue from a philosophical perspective, to realise what ‘value’ life holds and whether it can be subjected to less than one’s mere will to put it off. Secondly, by analysing that which euthanasia aims to mitigate, or rather increase: fear, and thirdly, by discussing the thin line that differentiates between right to life and right to take one’s own life. Finally, I would strongly propound against legalising euthanasia by proposing the alternative: modern palliative care.

Let us take a philosophical understanding of life. Does it have an intrinsic or extrinsic value? The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic. Extrinsic value means that it does not have value in itself but derives it from something else. The advocates of euthanasia actually say that life has an extrinsic value, which means life has only value if there is no suffering. However, such a definition makes life too narrow to live. The proponents of euthanasia decide the worthiness of life depending on physical fitness. What is the guarantee that the idea of physical pain will not change in due course of time? What today they advocate for vegetative state, will they not justify for any physical disability, citing the argument that it is better for such people to die rather than to live a life of handicap? Hence, in my opinion, life always has an intrinsic value—a value that is not caused because of something else. Therefore, it is wrong to erase out this life just because it does not live up to the expectation of the world. I refuse to believe that the value of my life is dependent on external factors.

Secondly, the ghost of fear preoccupies the minds of supporters of euthanasia. What they fear, and possibly this is the only reason why they vouch for such a dastardly act as euthanasia, is that they might have to undergo (or let their loved ones undergo) the dreadfulness of a sorrowful, painful, and tormenting end. However, it is an incoherent fear, since it is a fear of dependence. In the post modern culture, we want to write our own script and determine our own exit, and hence, this fear. Human society was always interdependent, and only in interdependence did we find joy, peace, and love. But in the race to become “self-sufficient” in this selfish world, where values of individualism dominate, such fears will certainly exist. The only solution for this fear is to commune with the society where interdependence is the key to life. Instead of killing people out of fear, we need to love and take care of people. If euthanasia is the only solution then we would never have any Mother Teresa, who devoted her life for the dying destitute. The truth is that we all have a right to die with dignity, which includes good palliative care and pain relief. What the supporters of euthanasia are really arguing for is not the right to die with dignity, but the right to be killed. They are demanding of doctors that they become killers. 

I, on the other hand, would argue that instead of eliminating fear, euthanasia creates fear. Euthanasia brings insecurity to the society because I never want to speculate whether the physician entering into my hospital room is wearing the white coat of the healer or the black hood of the executioner. In fact, it goes against the ethics of medical profession. To quote a crucial clause of the Hippocratic Oath, which every doctor takes before starting the practice, “I will use treatment to help the sick according to my judgement and ability, but I will never use it to injure or wrong them.” This is in recognition that the vocation of a doctor is to be a healer. Hence, a basic contradiction exists in euthanasia as it transforms the healer to a killer. This also demoralises the doctor-patient relationship, which has to be based purely on trust, not fear. Doctors are the instruments that bring hope of life; they are not the agents of death.

The third argument that the promoters of euthanasia put forth is the idea of human autonomy. They claim that decision making or choice is the key to any human right and no institution can deny the most fundamental human right. However, they fail to understand that all human rights are for the furtherance of development of individuals, and euthanasia just does the opposite. The notion of total personal sovereignty is absolutely a falsehood because no person decided to take birth by own free will. On the contrary, if we accept euthanasia based on the argument of autonomy or self-determination, on what basis will then be suicide unjustified? Hence, freedom has limits. We need to use freedom with restraint for the development of human life and not for its destruction.

The greatest apprehension against legalising euthanasia is that it can be easily misused citing the clause of ‘terminal illness’.  Medical experts concede that it is practically not possible to predict the life expectancy of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally ill don't die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition. However, gradually more euthanasia activists have dropped references to terminal illness, substituting them with expressions such as “hopelessly ill,” “desperately ill,” “incurably ill,” “hopeless condition,” and “meaningless life.” Legalised euthanasia will eventually become an easy door for involuntary euthanasia. It can be altered for hidden criminal motives, especially when taking medical care incurs huge costs and when there are financial interests behind the death of a patient; thus, it may not be in the best interests of a patient. Instead, the best alternative for euthanasia already exists: modern palliative care, which has been endorsed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Palliative care, also known as hospice, is physical, emotional, and spiritual care for a dying person when cure is not possible. It includes compassion and support from family and friends. Unlike euthanasia, palliative care is to treat the patient as a person, not as someone having a set of medical problems. When such a wonderful alternative exists, why legalise euthanasia? The intention behind those who close their eyes and hearts against this alternative is very clear. Dr. Robert Twycross, a practicing hospice doctor says to his patients: ‘Not only we will enable you to die with dignity, but we will enable you to live before you die.’ Ask yourself if it is possible to make an objective judgment and decide who is going to live and who is going to die. As far as I am concerned, such a choice is impossible, and therefore, euthanasia, which includes the necessity to make that choice, should be vehemently opposed, leave alone legalising it.

~I have experienced much pain in my life.  When my pain is bad, I do not need to be told that I am burdensome.  I need to hear that my life has meaning.  The feeling that I may be abandoned is worse than any pain~

– Alison Davis, A person with disability

Fireproof

Irony of Ironies!!!

May 13 the D Day for Maharashtra. Who's the next CM for Maharashtra? Gadchiroli after witnessing a brutal attack by the naxalites line up in their respective polling booths and record a 60 per cent turnout. However in Mumbai, the great cosmopolitan crowd only exhibits less than 45 per cent turn out that too after govt declaring a total closure of comanies and establishments. What an Irony??

What comes faster to us? Police, ambulance or Pizza?? What an Irony

Which is easier to take car or education, when car loan is 8 per cent and education loan at 14 per cent? What an irony!

Rich people will never question the rate at a branded outlet but will be stingy to bargain at the roadside vendor. What an irony!!

Fake encounter or cold blooded murder??

Ishrat Jahan and three others were shot dead by the Gujarat police on June 15, 2004. The Gujarat police prided to have gunned them down in an ‘encounter’ to foil an assassination bid on Chief Minister Narendra Modi. A suo motu notice of the incident was taken by the NHRC within three days and directed the government of Gujarat to comply with the NHRC 2003 Guidelines on Encounter Deaths.

According to Nitya Ramakrishnan, supreme court advocate writing in the Hindu (see The Hindu dated Septembet 12, 2009) "Encounter killings are surely homicide. Whether culpable or justified as self-defence is a matter for the judge". If encounter killings are homicide, then what would be a fake encounter killings? To me it is nothing else than a cold blooded murder.

Fake encounter is surely an attempt to murder cold bloodily. To reduce it anything less than cold blooded murder is to do injustice to the victims of such heinous crimes. Ishrat Jahan's case should set a deterrent to the perpetrators of such 'fake encounter'. If these accused police officers of Gujarat Police who were behind this 'fake encounter' are seen in the same manner as cold blooded criminals, only then will the society have trust in the justice system.

Making a mockery of Journalism in Live Television

In the News hour in Times Now, Arnab Goswami asks the questions “Would you pay more when they strike?” The whole question itself is lopsided. The question has a pre conceived angle. (For that matter any debate conducted in the channel is lopsided). The question clearly puts the blame on the employees without even going to the root of the problem. The whole issue started with the management violating the constitution of India which protects the employees to get unionised. The management stand is completely unjustified in not allowing the employees to get unionised.
Further Arnab puts forth his view that “Can Pilots who earn 1 lac or 3 lac to 7 lac per month be called as workers”. Now what kind of question is this? Remuneration does not decide who a worker is. How does remuneration stop one from being a part of the union?

Then he brings the president of passenger association into his show who says that “Customer is king... and we in India believe that customer is God”. Why do we pass such a blanket statement? Why do we just need to assume that customer is King, which is an explanation given by the companies to strategise their own benefits.

Leading by example!
Arnab then goes to his next question for debate. “Should MPs travel by business class?” He was putting forth an idea that in these recessionary times MPs should show austerity. It seems that Arnab Goswami was making a big fool of himself!!! Arnab doesn’t even confirm the facts before starting a debate. He is holding a government dossier and questioning the MPs travelling on business class. He doesn’t even understand that government order does not imply to the MPs, but the MPs are answerable to the Speaker of the Parliament of India. He does not even understand the difference between government and parliament. Before hosing a show please brush up your basics.

Time and again he was repeating that MPs should lead by example. I think that everybody in their own profession should lead by example in their field of expertise. This also means that Arnab Goswami who claims to be a journalist must also lead by an example by not framing question with a one sided intent (of just increasing TRPs). Empathy with drought? Austerity?? It is not only for MPs but also for the media.

In solidarity with the pilots

What a bizarre situation!!! Naresh Goyal, the CEO of Jet Airways in an interview to the Times of India says "...This airline has set a global standards and done India proud. For me, the country comes first, then the company and then individuals...". Such statements are considered normal and certainly unquestionable. However we tend to forget that in a welfare state(which India claims to be one), the state exists for the welfare of the people and not vice versa.

Instead of invoking the Essential Services Management Act (ESMA), the government needs to intervene for a just cause of pilots for formation of an Union. In the name of "discipline" the company is stopping the employees from exercising its basic right. It is a right of any employee to be a part of an union. Instead, the civil aviation ministry and the labour ministry are throwing the ball at each other. The ministry of labour must intervene and help the pilots to unionise.

Whenever such incidents happen the excuse that the company and the state gives is that it causes inconvenience to customers. However this is an easy way to get the public opinion against the right cause. The media too plays a partner in crime by only reporting the inconvenience caused to the customers, but the history of what led to the inconvenience is completely ignored. This gives a lopsided view of the issue. Finally the ones portrayed as villains are only the protesters, be it the pilots or the doctors or the teachers!!!

Truth: A Commodity

Recently in my class of Media Studies, my students were to discussing on the “reality” television. They discussed and debated on the case of “sach ka samna” a popular reality show which is telecasted on Star Plus. The contestant in the show exposes some “truths” of past life where dark secrets involving lust, sex and immorality are revealed to the public. The students were divided in their opinion about the show with only a few advocating for some kind of control over what is aired openly in television. Most of them were in the opinion that such shows need no regulation since most of us know to differentiate what is right and wrong and no one needs to define other person’s moral limits and moreover those who do not want the show are free not to view it and they should not interfere with others preferences. This is a popular argument which is echoed by the people having the so called liberal mindset.



Now let us examine this argument whether it stands the test. Firstly, any argument as this one needs to be extended and be universal. I asked the “liberal” students of my class whether they would extend their patronage from the reality TV shows as this one (where dirty linen is washed in the public) to pornography videos to be openly aired in the television using the same logic that people have the capacity to distinguish right and wrong and those who do not want to view are free not to view. However at this point the “liberal” students were quite uneasy citing that such a situation is not desirable since that would lead to social evils in the society. So the very people who said that no one should judge on what is right for one to watch are now themselves engaged in judging what limit of liberalism we need to fix!



The other argument is that it is Truth that is being aired and truth is a virtue and a value in itself. The problem with this show is that truth as a virtue is not been promoted and truth per se has no value in this show. Instead truth is equated with a monetary value. Hence Rajeev Khandelwal the host of the show, time and again reminds that as the money increases the questions that reveal the truth will become tougher. So the contestants decide at what amount of money which level of truth can be traded off. As far as the audience is concerned, no one is interested in truth as a value but truth as an entertainment. Everyone is interested in the mucky truths which are being revealed on the television screens.



Finally the truth is said to relieve one’s burden. As in the Bible it says “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:32). However the tragic scenes of disappointment seen when one does not win a single penny after losing the game does not in any way convey that such kind of truth has eased the burden let alone freed the person. Instead think of what would be the next step of such a person. Of course each one of us has a dirty past but the difference is when other person knows that past. Is the world outside ready to accept such a person whose dirty past is already known? Will the viewers who enjoy being glued to their television sets watching the show themselves share a positive attitude with such people. The answer is sadly negative in the light of the recent incidents, one in Meerut where a man stabbed his wife to nearly killing her for the “truth” which he could not digest in his personal life but was convenient enough to enjoy in television.



It is a “reality” show not in the sense that the show is real but the consequences of the show are felt in real life. Finally we have a new product in the market called as truth. Who thought that “truth” can be neatly packaged as a commodity and traded off in the market of TRPs to generate “profit”?