Should'nt I have the choice to live or die?

The Supreme Court ruling last Tuesday turning down Pinky Virmani’s plea to allow Aruna Shanbag a merciful exit has re-kindled the debate on mercy-killing. And as with debate on abortion in the US, has cleft society in two – the pro-lifers and those who are pro-choice – with no meeting ground whatsoever between the two.
For the pro-lifers, mercy-killing is no different from murder. To give it legal sanction, even with stringent safeguards, is utterly and completely unacceptable. But to the pro-choice lobby, mercy-killing is truly an act of mercy; a sign of an enlightened society where each of us has the right to choose, do we wish to live or die; where the right to die is the obverse of the right to live and neither can be seen in isolation.

Remember we are among the minority of nations that allows capital punishment. So why should the Supreme Court’s decision allowing passive euthanasia or the withdrawal of life-sustaining drugs or life-support systems for patients who are either brain dead or in a permanent vegetative state and doctors have lost all hope of reviving, be opposed by so many otherwise well-meaning people? As with many of our laws the Anti-Dowry Act is a case in point - the fear is that the provision will be misused. The old or infirm, especially those whose next of kin have a vested interest in their death, could be particularly vulnerable. Greedy relatives would be only too eager to hasten their exit.

But can the possibility of misuse be reason to ban mercy-killing altogether? This is an issue that every society will have to decide for itself. For now the Supreme Court has decided but the strong reaction from both pro-lifers and the pro-choice group means it is unlikely to be the last word on the subject. The strong public reaction is mirrored in the Supreme Court’s own flip-flop on the subject.


Faced with the question whether the right to life enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution implies the right to die in 1994 the Court ruled that ‘life’ does not mean mere animal existence but the right to live with human dignity. Drawing a parallel with the right to freedom of speech and expression where the right to speak also includes the freedom not to speak, the Court ruled that right to live must also include the right not to live.
However, two years later the Apex Court over-turned this enlightened view and ruled against mercy-killing of Gian Kaur, a woman left severely-crippled for life after an aborted suicide attempt. The Court then argued that the right to life might include right to die with dignity. But the right to live with human dignity cannot be construed to include within its ambit the right to terminate natural life, at least before the commencement of the natural process of certain death.

The question is what is the ‘natural process of certain death.’? With longevity more or less assured, at least for most middle-class Indians, but with no such assurance about the quality of life, this is something all civilised societies, including ours, will have to decide. Invasive and aggressive (not to mention exorbitantly expensive) medical treatment is likely to keep many of us alive way beyond what we would wish.

Is that what we would wish for ourselves or our families? Ideally this is a choice that should be left to each one of us to decide while we are in full possession of our faculties. Hence the popularity of innovations like ‘Living Wills’ in the West. These are instructions given by individuals specifying what action should be taken in the event of their not being in a position to decide for themselves due to illness or incapacity.

As with the executor in a normal will, the Living Will names a person who will take this decision on their behalf. The great advantage with this is that it eases the burden on immediate family members who are often torn between withdrawing or continuing life support systems. It also minimises the scope for foul play since the person named in the document will be someone who enjoys the person’s complete trust. To be sure no system can be fool-proof. The only thing an enlightened society can do is have sufficient safeguards and ensure those who cross the line are severely punished. Because at the end of the day, as pop group Bon Jovi proclaimed, it’s my life!