euthanasia
This post was sitting in my drafts section for more than a year and I wanted to post it at least now when there is case which has gone to the Supreme Court as a Mercy petition on behalf of a patient Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug, who has been lying in a vegetative state in a hospital bed for 37 years. After a heinous crime of molestation which turned violet left for dead, she had been living in her hospital bed with no improvement currently she lives on mashed food being fed through a throat tube till all these years. But the panel of doctors report states as follows:
But the 60-year-old likes fish and chicken soup, calms down after listening to devotional music and dislikes crowding in her hospital room, said an expert panel report submitted recently to the court. Being the first-ever euthanasia plea before the judiciary, a bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra was extremely careful and set up a panel of eminent doctors to examine and report her medical condition to the court. The report confirmed her pitiable physical condition — permanent vegetative state. But it said fish and chicken soup brought a smile on her face and devotional music calmed her down.
Shanbaug, a nurse at KEM Hospital, was assaulted on November 27, 1973, and she never recovered from the trauma and brain damage. On her behalf, Pinki Virani pleaded for euthanasia, saying Shanbaug be released from the trauma of living. But the court asked the panel comprising Dr J V Divatia, Dr Roop Gursahani and Dr Nilesh Shah to examine Shanbaug when KEM Hospital's Dr Ramaji Pazare said she "accepts food in normal course and responds by facial expressions. She responds to commands intermittently by making sounds. She makes sounds when she has to pass stool and urine which the nursing staff identifies".
Justices Katju and Misra feel it is one of the most important issues ever placed before the SC. The panel made this report to the court:
* She meets most of the criteria of being in a permanent vegetative state
* Her dementia has not progressed and has remained stable for the last many years and it is likely to remain the so over the next many years. At present, there is no treatment available for the brain damage she has sustained
* She has developed a non-progressive but irreversible brain damage consistent with the known effects of strangulation (she was strangulated with a dog chain before being sexually assaulted)
* Hospital staff provided her exceptional nursing care, so much so that she has not developed a single bed-sore or fracture
* She makes her likes or dislikes known by making certain types of vocal sounds and by waving her hands in a certain manner. She appears to be happy and smiles when she receives her favourite food items like fish and chicken soup
* She was able to take oral feed till September 16, 2010, when she developed febrile illness, probably malaria. After that, her oral intake reduced and a feeding tube was passed into her stomach via the nose
* Entire nursing team and hospital staff do not feel she is living a painful and miserable life.
So what will the judges decide - to end her life or allow her to continue in the same vegetative state.
Life is precious and no one has the right to take the life away from any body, even if they are suffering, but what do you to this lady, who will continue to remain in the same state till natural death overtakes her. If I were to be her, then I would be honestly wanting to be put to death.
I understand that Euthanasia is very difficult thing to do and every time it has to be done very very cautiously s in this materialistic world, there are may people instead of spending money on someone indefinitely, would like to put an end too. So we need to be extra careful too.
Here is the reproduction from wikipedia about
Euthanasia may be classified according to whether a person gives informed consent into three types: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary
There is a debate within the medical and bioethics literature about whether or not the non-voluntary (and by extension, involuntary) killing of patients can be regarded as euthanasia, irrespective of intent or the patient's circumstances. In the definitions offered by Beauchamp & Davidson and, later, by Wreen, consent on the part of the patient was not considered to be one of their criteria. However, others see consent as essential. For example, in a discussion of euthanasia presented in 2003 by the European Association of Palliative Care (EPAC) Ethics Task Force, the authors offered the unambiguous statement:Medicalized killing of a person without the person's consent, whether nonvoluntary (where the person in unable to consent) or involuntary (against the person's will) is not euthanasia: it is murder. Hence, euthanasia can be voluntary only
Voluntary euthanasia
Euthanasia conducted with the consent of the patient is termed voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington. When the patient brings about his or her own death with the assistance of a physician, the term assisted suicide is often used instead.
Non-voluntary euthanasia
Euthanasia conducted where the consent of the patient is unavailable is termed non-voluntary euthanasia. Examples include child euthanasia, which is illegal worldwide but decriminalised under certain specific circumstances in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol.
Involuntary euthanasia
Euthanasia conducted against the will of the patient is termed involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or active variants A number of authors consider these terms to be misleading and unhelpful
Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life.
Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill and is the most controversial means.
Some governments around the world have legalized voluntary euthanasia but generally it remains as a criminal homicide. In the Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia has been legalized, it still remains homicide although it is not prosecuted and not punishable if the perpetrator (the doctor) meets certain legal exceptions.
So lets see what the court decided. I know that it is going to be a monumental decision, as far as India is considered.
Comments