Euthanasia is not rare to the world anymore. In fact, there are many issues arises relating to euthanasia. One of the most spoken issues regarding euthanasia is whether or not euthanasia should be legalized. Euthanasia is defined as the intentional termination of life by another person through the explicit request of the person who wishes to die. As we all know, euthanasia has been legalized in several parts of the world such as Oregon, US and in the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, now these countries are now facing the negative side effects of legalizing euthanasia. In Oregon, the oregonians are now facing a decrease in the standards of health care. A report card issued by the Last Acts Organization proves my point as the report card stated clearly that Oregon has received a ‘D’ grade for hospice and an ‘E’ grade for palliative care programs. Another drawback that the oregonians are facing is that there is now an increase in medical cost. The Oregon Health Plan that normally subsidies for patients who can’t afford treatment recently cut off 10000 poor people from the plan in 2003. In 2004 and the first half of the year an additional 75000 people were cut from the plan yet again. The dutch are facing a different situation. Firstly, they are facing an inhibition in medical advancement. This is due to the fact that euthanasia has become a norm. So doctors normally just euthanize patients especially when they face any puzzling medical problems. Another negative side effect that the Dutch now face is that many of their patients are being euthanized without consent. A study released by the Dutch government showed that 9.1% of the deaths that occur in the Netherlands annually are due to euthanasia. In a nutshell, euthanasia should never ever be legalized in Malaysia because it has shown to have negative side effects in places where it has already been legalized.

One of the main reason why euthanasia should be legalized is euthanasia devalues human lives. Active voluntary euthanasia in humans causes rates of homicide and suicide to increase. The concern that social practices will lead to a broader ‘devaluing’ of human life with morally undesirable ramifications is a common concern raised in practical ethics, surfacing in debates over not only euthanasia but also abortion, assisted reproductive technologies,  genetic modification, biomedical enhancement of human capacities and capital punishment, to name a few. Many people accept the euthanasia euphemisms while ignoring the basic issues on which the debate hinges- whether or not the ends justify the means, and whether or not human life has intrinsic worth. People don’t see that despite the good intentions of its proponents, euthanasia attacks the very concept of what it means to be human, and they don’t see the tragic consequences of seemingly trivial philosophical errors.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide blatantly violate the Hippocratic Oath, part of which states, “I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” The legalization of euthanasia has the perverse consequence of allowing or pressuring physicians to kill, rather than care for, their patients.

With the availability of euthanasia, doctors in the Netherlands often fail to correctly diagnose a patient’s mental illness; instead of getting proper treatment, they are euthanized or allowed to commit suicide. Once euthanasia becomes widely accepted in a society, patients may feel a “duty” to die and may experience pressure and coercion from doctors and family members to not be a “burden” on their family and society. Voluntary euthanasia leads naturally to involuntary euthanasia. If it’s acceptable for a competent patient to choose death for herself, how can we deprive an incompetent patient of that possibility? Someone else must be allowed to make the decision for such a patient—and possibly against her wishes, were she able to express them. Such is the flawed reasoning of euthanasia advocates.

As a conclusion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, like abortion, take the life of an innocent human being.  In our quest to end the killing of the unborn, pro-lifers must never forget those at the other end of life who need protection as well.

Long time ago I read about a so called Doctor Death who in fact was a nurse who killed several patients because she couldn’t stand to see them suffering anymore. Now the news has happened in a hospital in Montevideo in Uruguay.

Two male nurses in their late 30’s and early 40’s respectively are accused of having killed two hundred elderly patients, because and as they claimed they couldn’t stand their suffering. 

Staff in the hospital were suspicious of so many sudden deaths, but they kept silent but it was a telephone text that averted to the police. The patient in bed 5 sent to travelling, it read.

From time to time I read on such disgraced news. Doctors or nurses who using their skills and their authority in the hospitals they work take on the their liberties to kill terminal patients without even their consent or their families.

It happens so often that takes me to think if it weren’t more sensible that governments everywhere decided on legalising euthanasia once and for all. If one of my relatives was seriously ill in hospital, I wouldn’t like the staff to take on such a liberty to decide on whether my relative was to continue living or not. This is a very serious and personal issue. 

The legalisation of euthanasia would require a big national debate where doctors and jurisprudence should be included as well as people to legislate a law which allowed a seriously ill or terminal patient to end its life or not. Or it should be its close relatives to decide if this person couldn’t do so.

But on one hand, this issue isn’t tackled. It remains taboo and those who decide on ending a person’s life condemned as criminals.

Those who aren’t practising Catholics claim that death has to occur in a natural way. Some doctors will exclaim that they are to save lives and not to kill. Practising Catholics will say that it corresponds to God to take this person. But meanwhile bedridden patients without a chance to enjoy life again are waiting in suffering for either natural death or God. 

This is pure hypocrisy and double standards, because these patients aren’t living. They are just breathing, because their hearts haven’t stopped yet.

I have worked as a home help and I have seen loads of distressing cases. Bed ridden people who were alone at home waiting for a home help to do the basic things for them, including to give them their meals.

Many families take their elderly mother or father to hospital on accounts of being seriously ill and they leave them on a hospital bed, so they can go on holidays.

At home, there is never a place for a mother or a father who grows old. So, a nursing home which are usually disgraceful businesses seems to be a right place for them to stay till the end of their days.

I have even read about an old man who was left in a petrol station when his family was going on holidays. They had stopped to refill and they seemed to have forgotten about their grand. He looked both ways searching for the car, but it had vanished. 

On one hand, we necglet our elders, but on the other, we outcry when issues like these come on the headlines. Or there are people who find it a burden to have to look after their relatives, but they wouldn’t hear a word on euthanasia. 

I think it is about time that this was legalised to allow a terminal patient to put an end to its suffering when there’s no chance of real life for him.

(7) There are numerous controversial issues that currently affect the evolving field of
psychology. Unsolved issues on human experimentation, abortion, genetic testing,
animal rights are a few examples of themes that arouse conflict and contention.
Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted suicide is yet another controversial issue that
has particular relevance to the field of psychology because of the apparent moral and
ethical dilemmas involved. Euthanasia, by definition “a happy death,” implies an easy or
painless death. The purpose of this procedure is usually to end suffering analogous to
the phrase “mercy killing,” the practice of putting to death a persons suffering from
incurable conditions or diseases. This subject brings to discussion one of the oldest and
most controversial issues in the practice of modern medicine.

(8) Euthanasia is, according to Webster dictionary, the act of killing an individual for
the reason of mercy. This paper will examine the issue of active and passive
euthanasia.
Active euthanasia is an intervention that would cause death to take place when it would
not otherwise happen. Passive euthanasia is the decision to with hold help from an
individual, ultimately leading to the death of the individual.
(9) Euthanasia, active or passive, would be morally permissible. Before I build the wall
of moral delineation between these two scenarios, consider that they are but two
possible choices on a broad continuum of options about death. I would suggest that
there are three hard points on this continuum;

1. Do not allow death if at all possible

2. Do not interfere with death

3. Death is a choice
When we hear the phrase voluntary euthanasia people generally think of
one of two things: the active termination of life at the patient’s request as it
occurs in the Netherlands (or similar proposals in other countries); or the
Nazi extermination program of murder. Many people have beliefs about
whether euthanasia is right or wrong, often without being able to define it
clearly. Some people take an extreme view, while many fall somewhere
between the two camps. Dictionary definitions avail us little, as there will
always be large groups of people that claim it means something else. The
apparent derivation a gentle and easy death (from the Greek, eu – thanatos)
hardly describes what we mean. Even extending the definition to include
bringing about of this, especially in the case of incurable and painful
disease (Oxford English Dictionary) hardly covers it – hospices often
succeed in bringing about a peaceful death, but they don’t perform
euthanasia.
(10) Conclusion : It is up to readers to conclude and decide which one is correct and
best. I will be glad if readers single out the best and inform me also.

DR.NAVRAJ SINGH SANDHU , P.A.H.S.-1
www.navraj@gmail.com

The practice of euthanasia has many terminologies that go with it, which are briefly explained below. 

Euthanasia may be ‘Voluntary’ (with the consent of the patient) or ‘Involuntary’ (where an individual makes a decision for another person incapable of doing so).

Further, euthanasia may be conducted ‘Passively’, ‘Non-actively’ or ‘Actively’. Passive euthanasia refers to the withholding of common treatments (such as antibiotics, chemotherapy in cancer, or surgery) or the distribution of a medication (such as morphine) to relieve pain, knowing that it may also result in death. Non-active euthanasia entails the withdrawing of life support (such as the ventilator), while active euthanasia refers to the use of lethal substances or force to cause death.

Euthanasia is also closely associated with ‘Assisted-suicide’, where the patient plays an active role (visible role) in causing his or her own death.

All technicalities apart, let us now use our own faculties. Doesn’t euthanasia seem so much like murder and suicide? Yes it does. Why? Because it is murder and suicide. Murder refers to the killing of another, and suicide to the killing of self. Every act of euthanasia, regardless of the prevailing conditions, is either a murder, a suicide, or both.

But isn’t it legal in some countries? Yes, unfortunately, euthanasia is legal in many western societies albeit under different names, but so is abortion, and how can anyone even have a grain of doubt regarding the fact that abortion is murder? Legality in these our very troubled and confused times, very often oversteps itself. No matter what the political system it is, that prevails in a country, legality (and politics) cannot play God.

It’s truly of great significant that those who advance the nefarious culture of death are “rationalists” and “free-thinkers” and “secular-humanists” and “feminists”. I ask those people-“where on earth are your grey and white matter?” Truth has been assaulted by the culture of death, which is forcing its deathly agenda on it, and on us.

It is heard so very often from supporters of euthanasia that it relieves the suffering of the terminally-ill, but to those people I say, “Euthanasia is not the answer to the sufferings of the terminally-ill; love is.”

The terminally-ill must be surrounded by their family members and they MUST RECEIVE a lot of LOVE. Love heals, and love saves. The critically sick person who is loved either recovers (beyond human comprehension), or dies a dignified and serene death. 

Note: For more information on Euthanasia, Abortion, and other moral issues, contact the author of this article.

The doctor in How Annandale Went Out believes death should be an option for patients.  The doctor’s prognosis was death for the patient, claiming “the sight was not so fair.”  Medical prognoses often yield erroneous results.  Patients thought to be in a vegetative state are misdiagnosed 43% of the time.  Should a person be killed with a 43% chance of being misdiagnosed?  If every patient’s family chose euthanasia for a patient thought to be a vegetable, more than two out of five people that would have survived would have been killed.  Think of all the wrongful deaths because of incorrect medical prognoses.  Euthanasia may be a cheap solution for a family but is money worth the cost of a relative’s life, especially when recovery is possible, and the prognosis could be wrong? 

For many, euthanasia is not an ethical choice because the value of human life.  However, the doctor in How Annandale Went Out does not feel remorse and stands up to social expectations by saying, “You wouldn’t hang me?  I thought not.”  The doctor is so sure of his actions he doesn’t believe anybody will challenge his decisions.  Humans create, collaborate, share, feel compassion for one another, and help each other. Human life is very special.  Euthanasia disregards and rejects the clear fact of the importance of human life and instead murders the “useless” people of society.  The person referenced in To the Mercy Killers understands the importance of human life and how vital trying to survive is, “Even though I seem not human, a mute shelf of glucose, bottled blood, machinery, to swell the lung and pump the heart – even so, do not put out my life. Let me still glow.”  The person wants his chance of recovery despite the pain, “Even though I turn such traitor to myself as beg to die, do not accomplice me.”  He does not want to be killed even when begging for someone to kill him so he can stop suffering.

Euthanasia, no doubt, is much less costly than trying to recover an individual from a seriously debilitating disease or condition.  Insurance companies will find euthanasia as means of not spending money on recovery or emergency room and intensive care service.  Insurance companies will have contractual means to force an individual into choosing euthanasia once it is an accepted practice.  The insurance company can refuse to pay for care and give the patient no other option but death.  Death panels in Canada are a prime example.  A board of individuals can decide if a person will cost too much to treat.  If the person costs too much to treat, passive euthanasia will be performed and shortly after, the individual will die.  This usually occurs by taking away food or water and allowing the person to die from starvation or dehydration.  This is morally and ethically wrong in many ways.  A person’s life is much more valuable than a few thousand dollars a big corporate insurance company will have to spend on a recovery or rehabilitation process.  When death panels are in place, families must fight for the lives of their relatives, sometimes forced to seek legal remedies.

Euthanasia will follow a slippery slope, as abortion has.  Thirty years ago, the abortion movement claimed abortions would only be used for the mother’s survival and health.  However, that is not the case today.  Abortions have become so acceptable they can be obtained on demand, weeks before a baby is born.  Euthanasia is no different.  People will begin to value finances and other trivial issues over life and ill family members will choose death over life in order to not be a burden on others in the family despite a chance of survival.  The more acceptable euthanasia becomes, the easier it will become pulling the plug on a person’s life.  After all, with it being accepted, who will be held accountable?  Euthanasia will become more prominent and become expected of people.  Individuals will feel forced into euthanasia to prevent from being a burden on their family.  Imagine an elderly lady in a nursing home her family is struggling to pay for.  With euthanasia being established and widely accepted, she will feel pressured into death because of not wanting to be a burden on her family.  Will she have the strength to resist what has become such a societal normality?  Most likely she will not.

In essence, euthanasia is immoral and should be illegal.  Medical prognoses are not accurate enough to permit doctors to offer euthanasia.  Human life is too important to allow a person to be killed.  There is always a chance of recovery and survival.  Euthanasia will no longer be completely voluntary.  Individuals will feel forced into euthanasia as human life is further devalued.  Euthanasia violates the sanctity of life by allowing a board of individuals to decide the fate of another on the basis of the cost of treatment. 

The committee, headed by a former minister, studied this issue for a year. It recommends that to allow “physician assisted euthanasia”. The doctors will be allowed to prescribe lethal drugs for patients with terminal illness that remain less than 12 months to live. The patients must have a standardized mental capacity and they must express a desire to die. Patients need to take the medication themselves, and the entire process will be according to opinion of two doctors at least.

Doctors will be allowed to help you die? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Under the current law, the punishment for suicide assistance comes to 14 years in prison, but the rules were changed two years ago and since then there were no convictions on the subject. The Committee calls to cancel the current law against suicide assistance, calling it “inappropriate and unclear”.
The members of the committee acknowledge that the regulations they offer may put pressure on vulnerable patients and make them feel they are a burden on society or their families. Therefore, they suggest not to apply the regulations on vulnerable populations such as disabled people, patients with depression or dementia.
 
Committee’s recommendation will be discussed in Parliament and some members also called the government to discuss it. But so far politicians refrained from supporting the law, fearing to look as if they are seeking to reduce the number of elderly and sick people due to budget cuts.

This story has reignited the debate over the law in England and Wales concerning relatives who help their loved ones die. The key differences separating euthanasia from a mercy killing is highlighted below: Mercy Killing versus EuthanasiaIs the proposed death harmful or helpful?Is the proposed death irrational or rational?Is the proposed death capricious or well-planned?Is the proposed death regrettable or admirable?Euthanasia is clearly a problematic issue as cases are so individual and different that it is very difficult to even base an opinion on the subject matter regarding every single case. The supporters of assisted suicide and euthanasia have the argument that if life is no-longer productive then euthanasia seems the most appropriate solution to this sensitive matter.

They suggest that if life has become too painful to bear, and you no longer wish to prolong it any more, then why cause a financial and physical burden to your loved ones. Although, critics of euthanasia put forward the argument that because all of us were given the chance to live here on earth, and living in this world is a combination of good and bad things. Meaning, we are already committed to whatever hand life has dealt us, and therefore we should also be committed to accept the fact that we are going to suffer though how soft and/or extreme it may be. Other arguments against euthanasia are: It could possibly turn into an evil account, for example:a hospital could recommend mercy killing to poor family who might not have enough money for a treatmentA patient who is in the vegetable state could have an unwanted mercy killingA small mistake from medical examination could take one’s precious life away from one who has a curable diseaseWhatever the case maybe it is still illegal within the UK and the penalty is a high one to pay. But one thing that will always remain a consistent is the controversy regarding the subject, especially when it is highlighted within the media.

‘Euthanasia’ comes from the Greek, the combination of words eu and thanatos. ‘Eu’ meaning ‘good or well’, ‘thanatos’ refers to ‘death’. So, literally euthanasia is a ‘good death’ or mercy killing. In 2000, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia. Next, in 2002, Belgium became the second country in the world to legalize euthanasia. Both these country legalized euthanasia in order to reduce the pain that the patient suffer. Euthanasia actually has a lot of benefits. It will help peoples, and also country. Even it looks like a murder or suicide but actually it is a mercy killing. Not a suicide. Every individual whom asked for euthanasia has their own reason, especially for a patient who had suffered an illness which cannot be cured anymore.

   Euthanasia will help to decrease the hospital bill. Imagine, if the patient has to depend on the hospital medicine for the rest of their life, how much it will cost them? Let’s take an example for an AIDS patient. We already know that there are no cures for AIDS, if that case, why they still surviving? As there are no cures, they have to depend on medicine all over their life. However, it is not worthwhile because those medicines will cost them a lot. All the treatments for AIDS can only slow the course of the disease. Even they always take those medicine, the disease still affect their health. There is no use to withstand if it only gives no hope to recover. The family’s patient will also be laden by the patient’s disease. They have to take a good care of the patient and if the patient is too suffering, for sure family should pay all the hospital bills. Here an example, Alka Tiwari. She has been battling plastic anemia, a form of blood cancer, since she was 12. The only way to treat her condition is bone marrow transplant which costs around 2 million rupees (40, 000 U.S. dollars). When the money becomes a problem, we need a better solution to solve this situation without burden the parents and the patient. So, mercy killing or euthanasia will help the patient and the family from the unnecessary hospital bills which will burden the family.

   Next, this mercy killing helps relieves patient’s pain and suffering. When a patient suffers any disease which only makes them getting weaker from day to day, why we still prolong their agony? It will only flagellate their life. Here a case from France, a retired teacher which suffered a rare cancer which only 200 cases occurred on past 20 years. Chantal Sébire suffered from esthesioneuroblastoma in year 2000. She refused to take any risk to go trough any plastic surgery, so she decided to ask for euthanasia in order to lessen her suffering. On March 19, 2008, she was found dead at her house with the help of medical officer. She chose for euthanasia because she refused to take any risk which only can make her life more suffer. Not all surgeries will end with success, there are also the side effect which will occur regarding the surgery. Her decision is absolutely correct, she may go trough the surgery or take any medicine but there is no guarantee that her cancer will recover. The conclusion here is, if the patient had suffers from a dangerous illness, why don’t we lessen their pain by euthanasia? Of course we do not want to let our beloved to suffer for a long time, so euthanasia will help to relieves them from suffering and pain.

   Euthanasia will helps decongests hospitals. Nowadays, many diseases occur and some of them can be cure and some of them have no cure. So, if the disease has no cure, why we still keep the patient at the hospital. Here an example, a patient who suffered from a last stage cancer. The cancer’s cell will destroy the biological tissue and metastasis. When this situation happen, the antibody of the patient will no longer can withstand the disease. Finally, the patient has to bear the pain till the end of their life. However, these circumstances give problems towards other patient which line up for a limited services which being used by the patient who is brink to death. If these patients undergo euthanasia, the hospital may provide more spaces for needy cases. Its not we want to kill them, but we have to consider the others too. Pregnant women for example are more important to use the hospital rather than the patient which only displaced at the hospital waiting for their last breath. So, euthanasia may be a right solution to decrease the amount of the patient which cannot be cured anymore.

   In a nutshell, euthanasia should be legalized. It provides a lot of benefits to others. If it is not legalized, it will burden the patient’s family to pay the hospital bills which will cost them a lot. Since the world had changed from day to day, and the cost of living increases from day to day we have to save our money and use it for important things only. As a normal people, we do have human heart. If that so, do we want to see our beloved bear their pain for a long time? Of course the answer is no. Euthanasia will help your beloved free from the pain. There is no use to prolong their agony if you love them. Euthanasia will also helps to provide more spaces in hospitals to give a treatment for those who are needy and have chances to recover rather than a patient who waiting a death on their hospital’s bed. So, euthanasia should be legalized as it is good for people and country too.

            However, there are measures that can be taken to keep a horse on its feet without causing it pain. Veterinarians often utilize a body sling to support the weight of a horse if it has an injury that disables them. Just like humans, horses too have access to pain medications to eliminate pain through healing. If these actions can be taken to keep an animal alive without suffering, why are so many horses still being euthanized?

            It’s a matter of quality of life. A lame horse, although able to live without pain will never be able to walk, run, graze or leave the shelter of a barn where their body harness is set up. So when you think of an existence locked away in solitary confinement for most hours of the day euthanasia begins to make sense again.

            With humans, that isn’t so. Regardless of amount of pain and suffering and quality of life or lack there of it is wrong for a human to end their life prematurely. Why? We euthanize animals that are sick, injured, elderly, or simply because they aren’t “suitable” for adoption. Yet, a human can experience excruciating pain day in and day out sometimes for years before they die and putting an end to their suffering is wrong.

            I strongly advocate assisted suicide for the terminally ill. Once you get to the point that living is more painful than dying you have to realize that one can and should be able to choose their own method for death. I believe it should be a choice just like any other. We all get to decide how we want to live, why can’t we decide how we want to die as well?

Sources

Rachels, James. The Right Thing To Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. 2010. Print.

Jagjit Singh passed away recently leaving his mourners behind. But it was not an easy and quick death for him. He had to battle it out for quite some time before breathing his last.  It is here that we find certain questions staring in our face. No one has ever conquered death, though efforts are on at various levels to at least postpone death and to elongate life, if that can be done with a measure of success. But to talk of voluntarily ending life!

The first voluntary Euthanasia Law that came into force on July 1, 1669, in the Northern Territory of Australia, provides that doctors are empowered to give lethal injections of drugs after terminally ill patients desiring death have undergone evolution by specialists and psychiatrists. It is another matter that the law has been challenged in the territory’s Supreme Court and that the court has reserved its judgement. No doubt, there is a great furore over the law. This has given rise to fresh debate whether or not a human’s life was his inalienable right. While those advocating it argue that the terminally ill people have a right to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to live on, others equally forcefully argue that “once the basic principle is violated, in practice there will be found even more justification to suppress the life of a person who is a burden on family and society”. In short, it could become a handy tool for getting rid of some people. Now, there is no doubt there can never be any unanimity on this. In fact, more and more people would rise against this. The Vatican has already banned it and with the majority of the governments it is not an issue at all.

In India, it cannot even be thought of. Not because we recognise and honour the right of the people to life. If that were the case, we would not have had ‘state facilitated’ killings we have every other day. We may not have the sanction of Euthanasia Law, but we can always leave live electricity wires hanging loose at some vantage point or leave gaping manholes unattended as death traps which adequately serve the purpose. On paper our civilised, responsive and responsible governments will always honour sanctity of life. In practice, however, they will always be guided by the principle of expediency or exigency depending on what meaning is assigned to these expressions and who the assignors are. So, in India we shall never have Euthanasia Law. We just do not need them. Besides, enactment of such laws requires some pondering and lots of political courage and political responsibility which most of our politicians do not boast of. But we need to examine this just the same.

When the provincial government of Northern Territory in Australia implemented the first voluntary Euthanasia Law in 1996, there was much hue and cry. Rejecting the theory of supreme right to life, Tom Pauling, the Chief Lawyer of the Northern Territory government said that “there is no inalienable right to life”. Understandably enough, it raised lot of dust.  Euthanasia aims at affording a painless death to those for whom life is a curse because of the terminal illness.  The word means ‘easy death’ and is based on Greek theory that incurables should be painlessly removed. Obviously, the idea is to mitigate the sufferings of a person who if not put to easy death will continue to suffer.  

While on sufferings, I am reminded of Raskalnikov, the protagonist of Dostoyevsky’s immortal work The Crime and Punishment, bowing down to Sophia, a weakling. She hurriedly retreats as Raskalnikov makes the bow. Did she think he was bowing down to her, he asked. He was, he himself answered, bowing down to the sufferings she represented. Human sufferings have moved many in the past and will continue to do so in future as well no matter how insensitive we grow. It is this sentiment that moved the heart of those who advocated the euthanasia law and it is the same sentiment that agitates the minds of those who oppose this law. Matter is taken to the court and it will be decided one way or the other. That is hardly the point that agitates my mind. My concern is—does this mercy killing have any relevance in India, notwithstanding cynical observations made above? Do we need anything of this kind at all? Here in India our approach is more philosophical, though less humane. We do not like to enter into an argument whether or not life is sacrosanct. To be more precise, we do not debate the question of ‘right to life’. For us in India, life itself means suffering for a vast multitude. If we were to have this law on euthanasia, it will be a cumbersome task to find specialists and psychiatrists for each of the sufferer whose death is contemplated to be caused. Sheer number would be mind-boggling and the whole machinery may collapse under its weight. If the number is managed, finding of pliable specialists and psychiatrists would pose no problem. Besides, the important thing is the elimination of sufferings. If death is what will secure this elimination, it is death that is important. And there are various ways of ensuring death here. We do not require any euthanasia law. It smacks of sophistication and elitism which need to be frowned on. No, we do not need anything that has anything to do with sophistication. If death is what is required to end sufferings, death it shall be and there are quite ingenuous and pragmatic ways of achieving it. The methods may be crude or cruder or even the crudest at times. They are result-oriented, time-tested and unfailingly successful. Few countries can match our ingenuity and rate of success. What is more heartening is the fact that we achieve the objective without actually engaging our official machinery. For instance, the official machinery did not have to do anything to cause the death of that journalist and his young and beautiful wife a few weeks ago in of our cities. All that was needed to perform the feat was to leave a live electric wire hanging on a busy road. The poor couple! They thought they were armed with an inalienable right to life. The sufferings of a young couple thus came to an end without giving a bother to euthanasia. Well, it was a crude method of achieving success. There are cruder methods as well. There is no need for showing any specific instances. There are more safe methods of securing mortality. If buildings are collapsing more frequently these days, if trains are going off the rails more systematically, if buses are falling into valleys and rivers more regularly and if occasional hooch tragedies are claiming more and more lives, they are not without a design. The design is to put an end to their sufferings. We have far too many ways of achieving this. What has been stated above is only an illustration, and as we all know, illustrations are never exhaustive. But our ingenuity (those who call it insensibility are being unfair) must be appreciated.  We do not believe in stereo-typed methods of providing relief from sufferings. We can have scores of pilgrims frozen to death as those proceeding on a pilgrimage to Holy Amarnath did not even live to discover for themselves, or those working in coal mines did not live on to recall and recount how their sufferings came to an end. Not that we can cause only mass deaths. We can also perform individual feats. And providence too seems to come to the aid of the ruling oligarchy everywhwere. Rainy season is the best season for this. If the gaping manholes have gobbled up many individuals individually, the innumerable ditches that our roads specialize in have broken ribs of several other individuals. And to top it all, we have this free for all traffic system that keeps multiplying to accidental deaths. Death is important, how it comes is not.

The promoters of euthanasia law in the Northern Territory of Australia have to do lot of explaining, and even then they may not be sure that their explanations would be accepted. We have to do no explaining at all. Pauling’s problem is—he has become an apologist for death. He has to find, as the opponents of this law say, more justifications to suppress the life of a person who is suffering, or who is a burden on family and society. And any justification presupposes a disturbed conscience. Besides, the procedure as entailed in this law is also very cumbersome. Under this law a general physician and a specialist have to sign a form confirming terminal illness and a psychiatrist to certify that the patient is not suffering from treatable depression. True, getting them to sign those forms here would not be a difficult job. But when death can be achieved without all this fuss, why not settle for something that is least cumbersome!

So, while in Australia a debate has raged for long on the desirability or otherwise of euthanasia law, we in our own country certainly do not require this kind of barbarous law that tends to seek permission of a person whose life is to be ‘put out’. Imagine, could we have got the permission of that journalist and his young and beautiful wife to electrocute them to instant death! These sophisticated laws are best left for those so-called civilised people. We have our own methods: the crude, the cruder, and the crudest methods of securing death. And we offer no apologies.