I know I am like ages late for writing on this topic. Call it my sheer laziness, or my dislike for writing on similar topics or any other reason, but I have never blogged about such things in the past. This post is a result of a discussion that took place on a friend's blog. Read on to know more if you are interested!
I have been reading about Aruna's case everywhere - Blogs, newspaper, twitter - and more than 90% of the views are that of favouring Euthanasia in her case. The Hon. Supreme Court thinks otherwise though. It rejected Pinki Virani's Petition that asked the court to allow passive euthanasia in Aruna's case by removing the food pipe. I read a post by a friend Pal on her blog. Click here to read it. I posted my views there as comments. Pasting the same here:
Me: do you seriously think her life should be ended by removing the pipe that supplies her food? that too on the basis of a petition filed by a “next” friend? I know when we look at the whole case emotionally, we feel pity, anger and frustration; but for that, can we twist the laws? If law is twisted here, do you know how many people will opt for euthanasia?
Pal: I definitely think so, Neha. Why do you think there will be a huge number of people opting for euthanasia? Nobody wants to die. Everybody wants to live. Only the most desperate will want to think of this.
Me: Let’s not be case specific here. rather let’s have a proper law in place for such a case..euthanasia should be administered, but there has to be a specific law and procedure for the same.
Pal: Yes, then we need to have well structured laws around this. But not legalising this is even worse!
Me: give you a simple example Pal – no matter how sick one is; maybe suffering from aids, cancer or anything, that person tries his level best to live and survive. only we have the right to choose our life and death..no third person can decide that on our behalf. a cancer and aids patient is too going through so much pain, but still there is a hope to live as much as he can..law clearly says that you can’t take away what you can’t give back!
Pal: That is not right, Neha. A person can choose ONLY WHEN HE/SHE IS CAPABLE OF CHOOSING. What about a person who is virtually brain-dead, cannot sit or stand on their own, cannot even speak, cannot eat or drink? Cannot even breathe properly? How do you think he will communicate his desire to live or to die? There are extreme cases and I think our laws need to be robust enough to meet them and take a call on such severe situations.
Me: I know she is living a horrible life, I know she is going through hell at this moment and I even know that her brain cannot think, but taking away her life without her or her family’s consent and that too by removing the feeding pipe – won’t that be a crueler death too?
Pal: I infact fully support ACTIVE euthanasia itself. Btw, are you serious??? Euthanasia is more cruel than letting her live like a vegetable?? Please don’t take this personally, but I would LIKE TO ASK YOU THE SAME QUESTION THAT PINKI VIRANI ASKED ON TV – Would you like to spend even one minute in Aruna’s position? Is it kindness for people (NOT FAMILY) to ‘keep you alive’??? Would it not be more kind to allow you to die in dignity?
And what do you mean by FAMILY? The blood relatives are nowhere in the picture. How rigid can the law be? How blind?!!
Me: we sometimes have to think out of the emotional box..as a lawyer, I completely agree and welcome the supreme court judgment..the person who filed the petition does not have any legal stand to file the case at the first place..then how can court issue an order for euthanasia?
Pal: This is exactly how ridiculous our law is!! As a lawyer, what do you think of the punishment for Sohanlal? That is technically right? Two 7 year sentences, that too running parallely, so he is fully free to go at the end of the 6th year (since he already spent 1 year in prison). LAW IS TECHNICALLY RIGHT HERE. But does it make any sense?? I am sorry, you may be a lawyer and welcome the court’s decision, but as a HUMAN BEING, what do you think?
Me: I may get a few hate replies and thumbs down for this comment, but these are my views purely! I do not intend to hurt anybody’s sentiments!
Pal: No question of hurting anybody’s sentiments, Neha, we are just discussing something serious here, and each person takes a stand , that’s all.
Me: one more point – Pinki Virani is the author of the book based on Aruna’s life..the SC would have first determined her stand – next friend is someone who is not a family or relative, but a closely related person for the petitioner..Pinki didn’t even know Aruna before her this state..second, just think from another perspective..if her petition was not rejected, imagine how many reprints her book would have gone for? she has a personal interest in this case..Aruna’s family has not filed the petition, someone else has..from court’s point of view, the euthanasia must not be granted and that’s what the court did!
Pal: Agreed, Aruna’s family has not filed the petition, because they have abandoned her years ago!!
Me: Ah, lawyers have to think beyond emotions you know..it’s difficult, but that’s how it is!
Pal: No, I don’t agree with that, Neha. Law is meant to facilitate justice and not block it. To state a rule like that is ridiculous, to say the least!!!! What is the use of such laws, that are just words and no common sense?????
Me: Pal, you are too missing the crucial point that the court made – I know she is in a vegetative state, but does she want to die? I know I know you will say that she cannot think, but isn’t it wrong to kill someone even if that person may want to live? And Aruna is not brain-dead. so what if the chances are .00001% but there are chances right? in one of the debates that i saw on TV, everything got stuck there. Right now we may right in our will/wishlist that kill us if we go in such a state; but do we know how do we feel when we are actually in that state?
no matter how much one says or thinks, no matter what you feel about a case, you cannot decide who has the right to live or die except for that person! and if at that time the person is not in a state to think or decide, you can’t be a godfather or a godmother to that person, period!
About punishing Sohanlal, he has been punished once. I am not saying it was fair or just or ridiculous; but he has been convicted once and as per the law, you cannot convict a person twice for the same offense. Whatever one says or believes, Law is Supreme and we are not above it!
no matter how much one says or thinks, no matter what you feel about a case, you cannot decide who has the right to live or die except for that person! and if at that time the person is not in a state to think or decide, you can’t be a godfather or a godmother to that person, period!
About punishing Sohanlal, he has been punished once. I am not saying it was fair or just or ridiculous; but he has been convicted once and as per the law, you cannot convict a person twice for the same offense. Whatever one says or believes, Law is Supreme and we are not above it!