The euthanasia controversy

THE Indian government is adamant about rejecting euthanasia in all its forms. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi argues that suicide is illegal and that applies to euthanasia. It was British law which made it illegal in India. The ban prevents patients in the throes of death from taking their own lives. Even adults who can make their own decision are not allowed to do it. Stating their willingness in writing does not help. The judiciary is currently moving towards supporting passive euthanasia through withdrawal of ventilator support. But there is a plethora of legal impediments. Active euthanasia means death by lethal injections and that is far from legal.
It is however only sensible to argue that abandoning a colonial law which prohibits euthanasia should be actively reconsidered. The ban is in sync neither with ancient Indian philosophy nor with present day Indian reality. Medical technology has made great progress in the country. That means more and more people are dying in hospitals. Many of them do not want to be in coma for a long period of time when they think that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. In ancient India many sages embraced extinction of their existence voluntarily. Mahatma Gandhi also wrote in favour of it. At present, euthanasia is done sometimes but only in secrecy. Legalizing it will eliminate malpractices as legalizing several other such controversial acts will. Democracy is based on the right to self-determination. Does this principle not apply to the right to die, especially when the decision is taken by patients with perfect soundness of mind? Suicide is never committed when one is absolutely normal.