Whose Life is it Anyway?

In India, the question of euthanasia, like in many other countries has been a point of heated
debate and discussion. Unfortunately, the question has generally been conflated with the notion
of suicide.

Under the provisions of Indian criminal law, an attempt to commit suicide and the abetment of
suicide are punishable offences. Euthanasia, however, must be understood to be very different
and is something which is limited to the medical context only. However, the case relating to
euthanasia is far more complicated than a legal issue alone. It has very strong policy, resource-
based and moral dimensions which must necessarily be examined for any fruitful debate on
euthanasia.

The policy argument which is commonly stated in the case of suicide, that the State would have
an obvious interest in preventing its citizens from killing themselves. This argument would not
apply with much force in the case of euthanasia as the person would already be suffering from a
severely debilitating or vegetative state for some time.

The resource-based approach would indicate that the resources allocated to a person who is in a
vegetative state or suffering from a case of debilitating illness, would perhaps much better be
allocated to those who have a chance of survival and would benefit significantly from medical
assistance. While it may be possible for the patients who are economically better off to bear the
medical costs, for those persons who are not economically privileged, the costs of medical
treatment would only be a further burden on already scarce economic resources.

As regards the moral dimensions of euthanasia, the argument of immorality is significantly

weakened when the State is more concerned about its dying than its living. The absence of any
comprehensive social security programme makes it very difficult for the ordinary person to lead
a healthy life. While it is necessary to look carefully of the debate surrounding euthanasia, it
must seen withn the context that the ordinary person is unable to get even the most basic social
security measures which would ensure a decent life.

At the end of the day, there perhaps is no single “right” answer when it comes to the issue of
euthanasia. It is necessary that within all of these factors, the notion of personal autonomy is the
most significant. The wish for euthanasia should come from the patient herself. If the patient is
unable to express this wish, it is possible to gauge from past conduct what the patient would have
wanted. If the patient has never been in a condition to express this wish, then the consent of the
family or those near to her should be taken.

While it is argued by many that permitting euthanasia can be likened to opening up a “floodgate”
of cases, it may not be a fair claim to make. If euthanasia is to be legalized, adequate procedural
safeguards must be put in place to ensure that the cases in which euthanasia is to be given are
absolutely necessary. Only then can a citizen of India be deemed to have real control over life
and personal liberty and live a life which is more than “mere animal existence”.