SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE LEGALISED?

SHOULD EUTHANASIA BE LEGALISED?

Ms Dee was the cynosure of all eyes when she was betrothed to Mr Tee who was a politician-cum-educationist, running a couple of schools and a Junior College in the Central suburbs of Mumbai. People considered her extremely lucky when she was blessed with her second son in the early 70’s. Surrounded by a happy family and owing property worth crores, Mrs Dee lacked nothing.
But, now in her old age, she does not want to live anymore. No. Not because her elder son had had a premature death. But because she is paralyzed on her left side and is bed-ridden for the past several months. Although doctors have assured her of gradual recovery with physiotherapy, her bedsores have taken their toll. What is more, she is unable to speak except making a few grunts. She needs someone to be beside her 24 hours a day. Mrs Dee now wants to die.
There are hundreds of cases of terminally ill patients with no means to finance their treatment who feel that they are a burden to their impoverished relatives and to the society for using up its resources. All are waiting. Waiting for a physician to administer a wee injection and ease their pain and of their relatives. Just a single syringe is all that is required.
The nay-sayers take up the high moral ground and aver: we cannot create life; therefore, we have no right to take it away. The patients want you, the society, to get into their shoes and then think of creation and morality from their point of view. What will you do? You are at a dilemma. And you cannot escape between the horns of the bull, nor can you tackle the bull by its horns.
    * * * *
Now take the case of Mr P who was in coma for over ten months after a fall from a height at a construction site. One fine day his life-support system was gradually slowed down till his eventual demise. Little does it matter who was behind the relaxation of the life-support system. But the question is: was the person, say, Mr X, justified in performing Euthanasia by Omission, however noble (?) his intention had been?
The term Euthanasia comes from two Greek words ‘eu’ (good) and ‘thanatos’ (death), which is translated as ‘mercy killing’ in common parlance. It is defined as intentional killing a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit by action or omission.
If euthanasia is legalized, as has been done in a handful of countries, what guarantee is there that it will be used only on the terminally ill? Even so, how can you define ‘terminally ill’? Even where a specific life expectancy (like six months) is prescribed, medical experts acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to predict the life expectance of a particular patient. Some people diagnosed as terminally don’t die for years, if at all, from the diagnosed condition!
Legalization of Euthanasia can become an instrument in the hands of ruthless relatives of the ailing person to their advantage – perhaps to inherit property or endowment. Thus it becomes a measure to cut costs on healthcare, or otherwise can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of values. Children who consider their aged and financially depleted parents a burden will be armed with a potent weapon to be rid of them. And strayed couple can wield the same weapon to clear their path to stave off divorce and subsequent exorbitant alimony. Thus it can easily be misused by all and sundry in unimaginable ways.
Prisoners from hostile countries and inmates of prisons such as Guantanamo Bay Prison will too often be induced to become terminally ill so as to be able to ease their pain with impunity!  Possibilities of misuse of euthanasia are endless, which is one of the most potent reasons for not accepting euthanasia as a viable proposition by many nations across the globe.
If euthanasia becomes acceptable the wedge between suicide and euthanasia, also termed as ‘assisted death’ will shrink membraneously. Euthanasia, then, will become ‘assisted suicide’ and assistance to euthanasia will turn into abetment to suicide.
The spiritually minded can take shelter in the metaphysical dictum that all that has been created by God is True, Good and Beautiful. That illness is not a curse but a means to diminish, if not end, the post mortem punishment in hell or purgatory. That in cases of really good and holy persons falling seriously ill, they can offer their pain to ease the pain of others, dead or alive.
However, such wishful thinking can never explain away the good-versus-evil conundrum. To the suffering, the very existence of God as a good and Fatherly figure becomes suspect. Their query boils down to ‘why does a good God, Omniscient and Omnipotent, permit evil, suffering and pain?’ (which discussion is beyond the purview of this essay).
If ever euthanasia becomes legalized, what will happen to the conscience of the administrator of the pain-ease mechanism? Will you as an individual accuse him of homicide or congratulate him for easing someone’s pain?
No doctor who has ever taken the Hippocratic oath wherein are incorporated the words: “I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”  will ever give acquiescence to such a law  due to its incompatibility with their professional commitments.
There are those who vouch for voluntary euthanasia where alleviation of pain becomes meaningless and death is certain. Even in this case such indulgence can be abused especially in those patients who have become incompetent to take a considered decision. Moreover, no kin can act as surrogate decision-makers for such.
No creature of God should ever feel that he/she is a burden to others. If they feel so, it is not their failing but the failure of their own kith and kin and of the society as a whole. They may be assisted, yes, but assisted to march towards death with a feeling that they are surrounded by loving souls who are reincarnations of God. It is your and my responsibility to make them experience heaven on earth and depart from this earth with a smile on their faces.

M Dominic Arivarasu