WHO SHOULD SIGN THE DEATH WARRANT?

 

47. WHO SHOULD SIGN THE DEATH WARRANT?

 

The emperor who used to issue death warrants for the traitors chose to issue the last death warrant for himself.

The emperor who was in his sick bed called his personal physician and said: I am fed up. I don’t want to go on. I want to bid farewell to this world. You should help me in that.

With tears in his eyes the court physician carried out the royal decree.

 

Years later the world came to know of this secret from the diary of the physician. The death of George V of England was due to euthanasia.

What is euthanasia? Direct euthanasia is speeding up of the death of patients suffering from incurable diseases through the administration of certain drugs. Indirect euthanasia is stopping to administer those life giving medicines which help to prolong the life of terminally ill patients. The general consensus is that both these methods are deplorable. The legislation to permit euthanasia failed to get through in America. But the lively deliberations which went on with regard to this legislation helped one to make a comprehensive assessment of all the aspects of this issue.

Earlier too efforts have been made in many countries to legalize euthanasia. It was in 1935 in England that a concerted effort was made in this direction. In England organizations for euthanasia were formed under the leadership of Killick Millard. The bill of legislation placed before the House of Lords in 1936 could not succeed. Though in 1950 another bill was placed before the House, it also failed. Undeterred, the proponents of euthanasia continued their propaganda tactics and once again brought up the legislation for the consideration of parliament in 1969. Though the bill did not succeed, the opinion gained ground that there was nothing wrong in recognizing the need for euthanasia in principle under particular circumstances.

The question is what are the circumstances that justify euthanasia and under what stipulations. It is difficult to define clearly these circumstances and these stipulations. But medical science has recorded near unanimity about certain conditions and situations which were in keeping with common sense. For example, take the case of a patient who is suffering from brain haemorrhage. Once it is evident after all the investigations that the patient is incurable, medical science may be able to prolong his life for a few days or months with the aid of a pace maker or with artificial respiration. But would it be proper to keep the patient like a living cadaver? The advocates of euthanasia do not think it should be so. What about a patient at the terminal stage of cancer? Death is certain. Pain is excruciating. At this stage what the doctor can do is to give some relief to the patient by administering pain killers. These medicines may probably shorten the life span. Under these circumstances the doctor cannot be blamed. In a survey conducted among doctors in England in 1965, 26% voted in favour of euthanasia. There is another situation which is similar. Suppose a terminal patient contacts pneumonia. Pneumonia can lead to death which is comparatively less painful. A doctor who tries to cure the patient of pneumonia is only trying to ensure death in instalment instead of treating him. Let the patient die only once. Let him not die many times. This is the argument of those in favour of euthanasia.

There are some very eminent persons among those who favour euthanasia. Socrates, Plato and the Stoics favoured this. But the Catholic church opposes euthanasia, direct or indirect. As far as they are concerned, any killing is a violation of the Sixth Commandment. And hence against the divine principle.

But the Church does not oppose administration of pain killers to patients suffering from severe pain, even if this may quicken their death. The Anglican Church is also generally against euthanasia. But the Anglican church is not opposed in principle to speeding up the death of a terminal patient when there is no other means to save him. But they will oppose any legislation justifying euthanasia.

In Holland euthanasia is not considered as murder. In cases which reached the courts, only negligible penalties were imposed. Societies which try to gather popular support for euthanasia are very active in Europe, America, Australia and Japan. There are numerous books advocating euthanasia. The arguments of those who oppose euthanasia go thus. God has given us life and only God has the right to take it. Whatever the circumstances be, killing is a sin. Medical science is progressing. If not today, certainly tomorrow it may discover remedies for every incurable disease. Hence we should make efforts to prolong the life of the patients. For example, when one or two decades ago the possibility of saving children with physical handicaps was rare, now medical science has discovered remedies for such cases. The question whether a child born with congenital physical disability should be saved or not is something which agitates the minds of the medical profession even now. In 1981 this led to a great controversy in America. A very reputed lady paediatrician had to face trial for murder for not having tried to save the life of a child suffering from Down Syndrome. During the trial it became evident that the parents were not interested in keeping the child alive. It was also established that it was the strong medication given by the doctor according to the wishes of the parents that led to the demise of the child. After considering all aspects of the case the court decreed that the doctor was not guilty. Consequently, there was a controversy on the pros and cons of a decision taken by another doctor not to conduct surgery on a new born child as desired by the parents. The Indiana court justified the decision taken by the doctor.

The arguments against euthanasia are these. 1. If euthanasia is legalized it will be used as an easy way by children to get rid of their aged parents with the help of medical practitioners.

2. Euthanasia will only help slow pedal the efforts through research and investigation to discover remedies for incurable diseases.

3. The possibilities of euthanasia being misused are many. For example, in countries where medical insurance is prevalent, it is quite possible that euthanasia may be used for financial gains. We cannot forget the innumerable instances of diabolic misuse of euthanasia by the Nazis in Germany. The essence of medical science is preservation of life and eradication of illnesses. Whatever the circumstances be, if the medical practitioner starts prescribing euthanasia it would ruin the confidence the people have in doctors. It is for this reason that the world medical community opposes euthanasia.

There is a large section of people who consider indirect euthanasia permissible. This section also consists of some religious leaders. At the core of this belief is the conviction that it does not form part of a medical practitioner’s duty to delay the death of a patient as far as possible, even after the patient reaches a terminal stage, utilizing the latest technology. This viewpoint is supported by religion to some extent because it is of the view that it is sacrilege on the part of modern science to intervene between God and death.

There are people who ask what is wrong in euthanasia being legalized when abortion and sterilization have been legalized. When a child that is born and a child yet to be born are both gifts of God what logic is there to permit abortion but not euthanasia, they ask.

It is relevant to note the facts borne out by a survey conducted in Mumbai. The survey showed that most of the expectant mothers who underwent sex determination test of the child in the womb, preferred to have abortion if it was found that the child to be born was a female. All but one of the 8,000 odd abortions carried out in Mumbai were of this kind. One’s love for aged parents cannot be more intense than the natural love of a mother towards her child. Then, one can presume what would happen to aged parents in case euthanasia is legalized when mothers do not hesitate to get abortion done conveniently.

Indian mythology has a character who established that one has certain rights over his own life span. Ruru, son of a sage, got enamoured of the beautiful damsel Premadwara. Ruru wanted to make her his life companion. But fate destined otherwise. Premadwara died of snake bite. The forlorn Ruru, wandering around in a desolate state, met an angel. As advised by the angel Ruru gave half his life to his beloved and brought her back to conjugal life. This story underlies the freedom a person has over his own life. Pururuvas who used to worship his father Yayati and who was prepared to exchange his youth for his father who was desirous of indulging in worldly pleasures is a towering example of individual freedom. When the courageous Velu Thampi Dalawa who refused to subjugate himself to the authority of the British, asked his younger brother Padmanabhan Thampi to behead him to save him from the indignity of surrender to the British, euthanasia takes on the mantle of courage and valour.

Is euthanasia right or wrong? This is a question that defies be answer. Even if mercy killing gets legalized who can ensure that it is only mercy that prompts killing.