This debate was raised in Fr. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), which ruled in favour of the motion and legalized assisted suicide. It was later contradicted and in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), where it was held that article 21 could not include the right to die or be killed. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, where SAP and euthanasia have been practiced regularly for more than 20 years, data are available on the frequency of requests for euthanasia and the proportion of terminally ill patients whose lives end in this way. Euthanasia received its current status in 1984, after a decision of the Dutch Supreme Court approved the practice, provided that a number of conditions were met. In particular, the patient`s SAP request should be considered free, conscious, explicit and persistent. The physician and patient must agree that the patient`s suffering is unbearable and that other relief measures must be exhausted. A second physician must be consulted and must accept the decision to end the patient`s life.
Finally, all of these conditions must be adequately documented and reported to the government agency that oversees the practice of euthanasia. Due to the availability of these records, several studies have documented the proportion of deaths in the Netherlands involving euthanasia and SAP (these estimates have been adjusted to account for the undercount of euthanasia acknowledged by many Dutch doctors). In reporting on euthanasia and SAP practices in the Netherlands from 1990 to 1995, van der Maas et al.[41] incorporated both official euthanasia reports and responses to anonymous surveys to estimate euthanasia and PAS rates. They concluded that euthanasia and SAP were involved in about 4.7% of all deaths in the Netherlands in 1995, a significant increase from the 2.7% of deaths involving medical assistance reported in a 1991 study. [31] Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for this right for every person. Soon, people in the state began to ask „Does the right to life also include the right to die?” This sparked massive debate and reflection on the concept and its relevance in the Indian context. Both cases, M.S. Dubal v. State of Maharashtra (1986) and Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of AP (1987) dealt with the positive and negative aspects of the rights accorded to the people, respectively.dem unlawful nature of certain articles. The two cases contradict each other on the theme „the right to life includes the right to die”.
6. This would impede funding and the provision of adequate care for the elderly and palliative care: With tight budgets, euthanasia would be considered a cost-effective option. In fact, it would be very „profitable”. Most observers attribute the modern euthanasia debate to the trial of Karen Ann Quinlan, and her story is a poignant example of medical technology`s ability to prolong life. If a person decides to end his or her life because he or she can no longer live in dignity, the question is not whether he or she can renounce his or her constitutional right to life, but whether he or she has the right to choose. The debate also extends to whether the fundamental right to life extends to the right to free choice, because after all, no open action is necessary to live life. The most abstract content of the resulting jurisprudence is whether there is a right to free choice and, if so, it will regulate or be subordinated to the right to life. The medical deficiencies listed above alone justify the joint conclusion of the investigations that legalization would be dangerous. Instead of resorting to assumptions of medical life, all physicians responsible for the care of terminally ill patients should accept their duty to provide such care to the best known standards, as they must legally do in other branches of medical practice.
In this world of rapid development and wonder, I firmly believe that one day man would develop a mechanism to minimize pain and make life less stressful. The appropriate course of action would be to introduce an appropriate ethic of care that ensures a dignified existence, rather than trying to end life. It is also considered medically unethical and contradicts the notions of care, healing and nursing oaths that medical officials provide. Understanding the dilemma of family and physicians in prescribing passive euthanasia is a painful and necessary task to free the person from unnecessary resources and time without ensuring the normality of life in the future. It is the level of mental awareness that determines whether the individual receives consent to passive death. Therefore, such a decision is much more risky and complex if the person is mentally awake. In our society, palliative care and quality of life for patients with incurable diseases such as advanced cancer and AIDS have become a major concern for clinicians. Alongside this concern, another controversial issue arose – euthanasia or „mercy killing” of terminally ill patients. Proponents of physician-assisted suicide (SAP) believe that a person`s right to autonomy automatically gives them the right to choose a painless death.
Opponents argue that a doctor`s role in the death of an individual violates the central tenet of the medical profession. In addition, undiagnosed depression and the possibility of social „coercion” among those seeking euthanasia call into question the ethical principles underlying such an act. These concerns have led to strict guidelines for the implementation of the SAP. The assessment of the mental state of the person who accepts the SAP becomes mandatory and here the role of the psychiatrist becomes decisive. Although the PAS is considered illegal in our country, it has several advocates in the form of voluntary organizations such as the Death with Dignity Foundation. This has been reinforced by the recent Supreme Court decision in the Aruna Shaunbag case. It remains to be seen how long it will take for this sensitive issue to shake the Indian legislature. The case for legalizing euthanasia/SAP is substantial.
Proponents of SAP perceive the SAP as an act of humanity towards the terminally ill patient. They believe that the patient and family should not be forced to endure a long and painful death, even if the only way to relieve suffering is suicide. According to proponents of PAS, it becomes ethical and justified for the quality of life of the terminally ill patient to become so low that death remains the only justified way to alleviate suffering. The absence of a defensible remedy and the decision of the dying patient himself to end his life are conditions that make euthanasia more justified. [9] For the proponent of the SAP, the legalization of SAP is a natural extension of patient autonomy and the right to determine which treatments are accepted or refused. The case for legalizing SAP is generally based on the assumption that SAP applications are „rational” decisions given the circumstances of terminal illness, pain, increased disability, and fears of becoming (or continuing to be) a burden on family and friends. Given the possibility that these symptoms and circumstances may not be alleviated even with aggressive palliative care and social services, the decision to hasten death may seem rational. [10] Proponents of euthanasia also criticize the „artificial and impractical” distinction between active and passive euthanasia by the court and religious organizations. Deprivation of life support, a classic form of „passive” euthanasia, actually involves an „active” step to hasten the death of a terminally ill patient, and it is the patient`s consent that gives legitimacy to the action.
If a doctor administers a lethal dose of injection after similar consent, there is no reason for this act to be considered illegal or immoral. [11] In addition, the desire to involve one`s own physician in end-of-life decision-making can be seen as an extension of the natural dependence of terminally ill patients on their physician for help in most aspects of their illness, as well as a reasonable mechanism to ensure that they do not become more disabled and distressing to their families or their families. friends by unsuccessful suicide attempts (leading to a vegetative state or increased disability). In some industrialized countries, donations increase after cardiac deaths. Seventy percent of organ donations come from these patients. They are performed in a fully controlled environment where some patients may also be mentally alert. The question is what is the cost of care and who should bear the costs. If the condition is such that survival is impossible, passive euthanasia is allowed.
SAP, on the other hand, involves a doctor who provides medication or advice to help the patient end their own life. While the theoretical and/or ethical differences between euthanasia and SAP may be subtle for some, the practical differences can be significant. Many terminally ill patients have access to life-threatening medications, sometimes even at the request of their doctor, but do not use these drugs to end their lives. Similarly, euthanasia means the practice of ending the life of a person with an incurable disease that is incurable or has persistent pain or suffering and is not a life worth living. Therefore, the issues that need to be understood and addressed are diverse. The debate on the issue and the factors to consider when deciding whether one`s life is no longer worth living continues.