Click to play videoAruna Shanbaug, a former nurse, has been brain dead and paralysed for the last 36 years after she was raped in November 1973 in Mumbai. Now, writer Pinki Virani, has approached the Supreme Court seeking respite for her and has appealed that Aruna be allowed to die.
The apex court, which is against euthanasia, has issued a notice to the KEM Hospital where Aruna, who is 61 years old now, has spent three decades in a vegetative state after the brutal sexual assault.
The Supreme Court has asked the Central Government for a response on Aruna's case.
Should a woman who is brain dead, speech dead and paralysed, who has been in an unconscious condition for 36 years be made to live in her current state or should she be allowed to die?
CNN-IBN show Face the Nation debated: Aruna Shanbaug case – should Indians have the right to die?
The panel of experts included lawyer and activist Flavia Agnes, physician and General Secretary, Society for the Right to Die with Dignity, Dr Surendra Dhelia, Catholic Bishops Conference of India (CBCI) Spokesperson Father Babu Joseph and Sujatha, mother of former chess player Venkatesh, who was terminally ill and had sought euthanasia. He died awaiting euthanasia in 2004.
Appeal for Aruna
Aruna is not on life support system. She is alive but is being force fed.
Flavia started the debate arguing in favour of giving death to Aruna saying what she needed was a dignified exit.
"There is no remedy for her so what is the point in keeping her alive. It is not a question of heart and lung. It is a question of well-being and it is a question of dignity. It is a question of what possible recovery does she have. If none of them exists then I don't think why force feeding itself becomes a very major issue. If it is withdrawn what difference does it make to her because she is brain dead. I think she should be allowed to die," said Flavia.
However, Father Babu Joseph countered Flavia saying the society needs to show more responsibility towards Aruna and take good care of her.
"This person is a victim of a very unfortunate incident. Therefore, we have a greater responsibility towards caring her. One should not count the number of years but should count the value of life. Once you decide on this case as permissible, then you are creating a precedent based on which you will have serious consequences in a country like India where laws can be flouted and manipulated. The point is how you define quality of life. There is no single definition of quality of life that can be applied to everyone across the board. People with different abilities are able to live their life differently. Therefore, let us not use one standard across the board for all individuals. We have a responsibility to care for people who are differently abled or people who are not able to function normally," argued Father Joseph.
Dr Surendra Dhelia, however, backed Flavia saying that Aruna just ‘existed’ and could be termed as living.
"I think this patient should be allowed a dignified death. She is not living, she is just existing. Giving her a peaceful, dignified death to her would not amount to murder. It should not be punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the contrary it should be recognised as a justifiable act of compassion," said Dr Dhelia.
Father Joseph once again reiterated that the society should be more compassionate towards Aruna.
"The fact is that we have social responsibility and that compassion is part of social responsibility and not just terminating life. And who are we to decide that someone should die at this particular point of time. I think we are playing God in this case," he said.
Flavia claimed that Aruna was not a routine case but a rarest of rare case. She argued that by keeping her alive the society was inflicting more trauma on the hapless woman.
"I agree that we should not treat all cases alike. But this is an exceptional case and it cannot be laid out as a precedent. Supreme Court has gone on a case to case basis many times. It should not be a blanket statement that anybody who is not able to live or is differently abled should die. She has a faint glimmer of life but that life is all trauma. What she recollects is only the trauma of rape. If any man enters the room she is in a horrified state. It is so pathetic to see her in this condition. If we care for life then we should really care for peaceful death with dignity," said the articulate lawyer.
Meanwhile, Dr Dhelia cautioned against treating all cases alike.
"Whatever can be used, can be abused. A surgeon can use a knife to cure a person or to kill a person. So we have got to have proper safeguards. What are we achieving by keeping Aruna Shanbaug alive? Is she of any use to herself, is she of any use to society or is she of any use to the nation? By her peaceful exit we are ending her survival which is also dead. I am not saying that anybody who comes and says ‘I am terminally ill, I am suffering and I want a peaceful exit' should be allowed to do so. We should have proper safeguards," he said.
"When we are well we should sign a living will where we can say that in future if something happens to me wherein I cannot take decisions myself, this is what needs to be done or this is what should not be given to me. Or we can appoint a constituted attorney if in case I am not able to take decision then that person can take decisions on my behalf. Here I would complement the lawyer who has filed the appeal. I don't know the legal grounds but I wish she succeeds because of humanity," he added.
Venkatesh's mother Sujata while justifying her appeals for mercy killing for her son said she was not in favour of Aruna being allowed to die.
However, Dr Dhelia pointed out that Venkatesh and Aruna were two different cases.
"For me this does not make any sense as a person has to be brain dead for his organs to be donated. If there is no chance of recovery after treatment then the person should be allowed a peaceful exit," he said.
The 18th Law Commission has recommended legalising euthanasia and legalising assisted suicide.
Father Joseph countered the recommendation by saying life is much more that just a piece of legislation.
"Life cannot be just reduced to legality alone. Life is much more than law. There is an ethical dimension, there is moral dimension and there is a spiritual dimension to human life," he explained.
Flavia once again appealed that Aruna's case be treated differently and that the court and society take a compassionate view.
"Her trauma has not diminished and life has not improved. The nurses are caring and she has been kept there because she was working in KEM Hospital. A lot of organisations take care of terminally ill patients. In Aruna's case her heart maybe beating, her lungs may be functioning but her brain is dead. If the brain is dead how can the person be alive? The person is just kept alive. This is a very, very special case," she concluded the debate.
Final Web/SMS poll result:
Yes: 82 per cent
No: 18 per cent
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
More on IBNLive Right Now
TOP NEWS
MOST SHARED
PHOTOGALLERY
