Right to die is legally contentious and emotional
Professor Stephen Hawking has set the cat among pigeons by expressing his support for ‘assisted suicide', which in simpler terms means the right to die. The noted physicist, who suffers from a rare motor neurone disease, said in an interview to the BBC recently that the right should come with a host of safeguards so that it does not get misused. Those across the world who have been campaigning for euthanasia will take heart from professor Hawking's stand, especially because the distinguished scientist had seven years ago said it would be a “great mistake” if a victim was given the right to end his or her life. It is not clear what has prompted Mr Hawking to change his position, but his latest statement is bound to trigger a fresh round of massive and acrimonious debate on the subject. The House of lords in the UK is slated to take up an Assisted Dying Bill for consideration the following year, and the professor's remark will certainly impact the debate. The subject has been a bone of contention in India too, with several attempts by terminally ill patients or close family members to seek legal clearance for euthanasia having failed in the courts. The most talked-of case is that of Aruna Shanbaug who is on life-support system in a Mumbai hospital since the early seventies. Aruna was sodomised and strangled with an iron chain by a sweeper in a hospital where she worked as a nurse. This cut off the supply of oxygen in her body and turned her into a permanently vegetative state. On behalf of Aruna, her friend and social activist Pinki Virani filed a plea in the Supreme Court for discontinuation of the life-support system because the “continued existence of Aruna is in violation of her right to live with dignity”. The court rejected the petition in 2011 primarily because those who were caring for her in the hospital opposed euthanasia for the patient. But the apex court left a window of opportunity open to take the issue up for further consideration by suggesting that the Aruna case verdict was a one-off, and that similar cases could be dealt with differently. Towards that end, the court issued a set of broad guidelines to legalise ‘passive euthanasia' in the country, which involves removing life-support systems from patients whose vegetative state has been declared medically irreversible. However, the Supreme Court expressly forbade the use of ‘active euthanasia', which includes the injection of a potent drug to bring forward the end of the patient.
The issue of allowing a person to die with dignity is not as simple as the activists who campaign for ‘assisted suicide' believe. The scope of misuse of a law that may legalise even passive euthanasia in a country where millions of citizens are not even aware of their basic rights is enormous. Such a law can even become an easy way out to get rid of a person for pecuniary gains. These are the reasons why we need to tread with caution.