Ethical dilemma of euthanasia
This poses a new challenge to policymakers as they grapple to find a balance between individual autonomy and exploring all medical options to save lives.
The right to death with dignity is as important as the right to live. The recognition of an individual’s right to exercise bodily autonomy is a sign of maturity in any evolved society.
However, each case needs to be addressed with sensitivity and compassion.
The recent case of a troubled 28-year-old Dutch woman choosing to end her life through euthanasia, due to a mental health condition, autism and personality disorder, has rekindled the debate on mercy killing and the ethical issues involved in it. Since the woman’s physical health is fine, allowing assisted suicide in this case has raised some disturbing questions.
This poses a new challenge to policymakers as they grapple to find a balance between individual autonomy and exploring all medical options to save lives.
The mental health conditions cited as reasons by the Dutch woman to end her life are not considered untreatable diseases.
In such cases, it would be unethical to allow assisted suicide in the name of ending suffering and honouring an individual’s right to die with dignity.
While advocates of euthanasia may argue for the right to autonomy and relief from unbearable suffering, it is essential to approach such cases with utmost caution. Mental health issues, however complex they may be, are treatable with appropriate interventions.
Permitting euthanasia might, in such cases, inadvertently shift the focus away from providing comprehensive mental healthcare and support to individuals grappling with terminal illness.
The focus should be on comprehensive mental healthcare and psychosocial support to address suffering and promote resilience.
The Netherlands is one of a handful of countries in the world where euthanasia is legal. In India, the 2018 Supreme Court verdict, allowing passive euthanasia and recognising the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right in the spirit of Article 21, was truly a landmark and reflected maturity.
The judicial approval for ‘Living Will’ came as a huge relief for those who want to exit this world with dignity instead of prolonging their suffering by extending the life support system in a vegetative condition.
‘Living Will’ empowers individuals of sound mind and health to leave explicit instructions in advance about the medical treatment to be administered when they become terminally ill and can declare in advance that their life must not be prolonged if they slide into a vegetative state.
While seeking to find a balance in the relationship between life, death and morality, the apex court had rightly pointed out that burdening a dying patient with life-prolonging treatment would be destructive of his or her dignity and in such a situation individual interest has to be given priority over the state interest.
Legitimising the system of Living Will would free the family members and doctors of the moral dilemma of how long to continue the life support system in clinically irretrievable cases.
