Sensible adieu

[pavalamani pragasam]

[tscii:ce30649666]Sensible adieu
Birth is an occasion for joy. Contrarily, death is attended with grief. But birth and death are like two sides of a coin. They are inseparable. Death, like a shadow stalks behind a person from the moment he is born. In other words death is inevitable.

Mortality is the most certain certainty on earth. Though we know we shall die, we are blessed to be ignorant of when or how we shall die. Death comes at any age and any place. The causes are innumerous. Disease, accident, natural calamity, starvation, suicide, murder or sheer old age can bring about death.

Desires may vary from person to person but there is one desire which is common to all. Everybody wants to die without pain or suffering. But how many people have their desire fulfilled? Everyday, every minute, every second there are thousands dying in agonized pain suffered due to one of the causes listed above. Very rarely and very few blessed mortals are clasped by death in a peaceful embrace.

When a person is terminally ill, has no chance of getting well and is suffering from severe pain his imminent death can be speeded up by voluntary, soothing aids. Such a practice is called euthanasia.

Generally this concept is shocking to a majority of people because it is a matter of human ethics , of the sense of right and wrong. They believe the Almighty alone shall decide how long a mortal can live. The end should come, they feel, naturally - and not forced.

The first argument against euthanasia is it is equivalent to plain murder. Hence a crime and a sin . The second argument is miracles, though rare, are nevertheless possible. The excruciating, indefinite wait for miracle while the patient lies without the hope of recovery crosses rational limits of human endurance. Too heavy an emotional and monetary burden to carry.

In such situations euthanasia is a very sensible solution. But in the present atmosphere the medical practitioner who has taken the solemn, Hyppocritic oath to save the life under his treatment to the best of his ability cannot be seen in the light of an executioner, so to say.

It is strange how in human society killing is not always considered sinful. Cruel, ruthless, brutal killings have been taking place everywhere down the ages.

Wars in the name of political ambitions and crusades for fanatical religious faiths are all part of man's history to this day. Soldiers fight for the country with patriotism serving in the army, navy and air force.Killing the enemy is their bounden duty.

Policemen and commandos are deployed to quell riots and to maintain law and order. When mobs turn rebellious “Shoot-at-sight” orders are issued. The killings by the military force and the police have legal sanction. They are morally right. There is no place for remorse.

In “Mahabharatha”, Lord Krishna convinced Arjuna with the gospel of Gita about “Karma” and “Dharma”. Killing of the kith and kin which Arjuna abhorred was rationalized beautifully.

In ancient civilizations also killing has been sanctioned by law and custom. In Sparta, it is said, the warrior race did not think it worthwhile bringing up children who lacked physical stamina. It was their custom to roll tender babies down hilltops. Only the survivors were picked up and reared.

Neither was suicide ignominious and condemnable as a coward's escapist decision. With Romans it was considered valour to kill oneself than be captivated by the enemy. Mark Antony is a famous example.

The Rajput ladies in India who killed themselves before the captors entered their premises were ennobled. The practice of “Sati” has flourished for long deifying the hapless widows who were virtually pushed into the funeral pyre of their husbands.

Social evils and terrorism have been carrying on killing in many forms and for no noble purpose.Compared to the categories of killing cited above, euthanasia is a completely different variety. Its aim is humane.

Some years ago the lady of my neighbouring house who was in her thirties fell ill with cancer. I vividly remember her last days and her pathetic wails are still ringing in my ears. In spite of all treatment her condition deteriorated fast and towards the end she groaned in pain begging her husband to give her some poison to end her insufferable ordeal. But he refused to comply with her desperate wish. He could not think of it. He cannot bring himself upto killing with his own hands his wife whom he adored. Perhaps he feared his conscience would torment him for the rest of his life. It never occurred to him that he will be actually rendering her real service by fulfilling her wish. Such is the stance taken by an individual in the present social background built on ethics of old times and fear of interfering with divine will.

Do we not put suffering animals to sleep? Is that not a gesture of grand kindness? Even Mahatma Gandhi who preached and lived for “Ahimsa” requested the calf suffering in heartrending pain be put to sleep.

If animals meet with such gracious mercy do we human beings not deserve it much more strongly and urgently? What is the use of prolonging the life of a comatose person lying unconscious in a vegetable state for years on end?

The emotional trauma of the relatives and the heavy medical expenses can very well be saved in cent percent hopeless cases. When it is obvious that the utmost modern medical facilities cannot alleviate the pain and suffering of a terminally ill person whose remaining life shall tick on only for a few more days, hours or minutes, is it not merciful to take resort to euthanasia? Valuable medicine, time, money, service of the medical personnel can all be spared as also the unspeakable, indefinite anguish of near and dear ones. It is unnecessary to prolong the mental agony of all concerned.

In this modern age when thinking patterns and concepts have crystallized to a finer and saner level, let us learn to come to terms with death - willed death. Let us give death the dignity it deserves. It is easy once the decision is taken with conviction and confidence. It is better that way. It is a service of a special kind, of supreme discretion. Let us strive to get itsanctioned legally and ethically. Let sentimental tears give way to sensible adieu.[/tscii:ce30649666]

[blahblah]

Mrs.PP,I am sure your arguments came from a great heart,and you have put it down beautifully.However,I feel,if mercy killing is legalised it is surely going to be misused.I remember a recent case when a mother fought in court for her suffering son's right to die.It is a difficult question indeed.I somehow feel I will vote against it given a chance-not too sure.

I wonder why no one participated in this thread so far.May be you too are finding the qustion difficult. :(

[NM]

I wonder why no one participated in this thread so far.May be you too are finding the qustion difficult. :(

You're right, blahblah...Yesterday, I started out writing soemthing but could not go on....I have mixed feelings abt it..
On one hand, if I am the affected one, will definately request for my dear ones to put me to sleep forever....don't want to suffer and let our dear ones suffer too, not knowing what's going to happen and when/ if I will ever be able to be normal again.

But, on the other hand, if it happens to my loved ones, I don't think I will have the courage to let them go...seeing the dearly beloved's face is, I think, a btter option than to let them go permanently and live onmemories..but then again, guess, this is a selfish feeling! Guess one can only participate in this kind of thread if one had had the experience.....

[Sandeep]

I think mercy killing can be allowed with special permission from authorities. Since the chances of missusing this is high getting this permission should very very difficult and should be done in rarest of the rarest cases. May be at governor or presidencial level (Like it is done for in the case of mercy for death penalty)

May be in cases where a person is brain dead but whose heart is beating or in cases death is sure to come at the end of painful suffering.

Its unimaginable the suffering of a person who knows this dead is near or for his family who has to helplessly see him suffer.

Again you can never understate the possibility of missusing this by selfish family members.

[blahblah]

On one hand, if I am the affected one, will definately request for my dear ones to put me to sleep forever....don't want to suffer and let our dear ones suffer too

Think about the intense mental agony they will go through to live with the feeling that you would have lived[even though in suffering] atleast a few more days,if they chose to.That heavy feeling will never go away.I would rather endure the pain so that I don't grieve my dear ones.

However,it should be taken note that,world wide activists in favour of mercy killing[euthanesia or assisted suicide] have grossly exaggerated the suffering and have exploited the fear of suffering pain which is part of human character.Modern day medicines are a lot effective and can reduce the pain to a remarkable extent.

Again,Belgium and Netherlands are probably the only nations which have legalised assisted suicide and were not free from controversies either.So I would say it is too early for India to take a decision on this.

My father and an aunt died from cancer and I have been a witness to what they were going through.Both of them endured the pain and suffering with courage and dignity till their last breath.

So shall I be,or that's what I feel now.

[NM]

"
My father and an aunt died from cancer and I have been a witness to what they were going through.Both of them endured the pain and suffering with courage and dignity till their last breath.
So shall I be,or that's what I feel now.
Blahblah...I am sorry to hear that......
yeah...that's why, I said my thoughts may be selfish.....anyway, we can never tell, can we, unless we're in that situation.. :cry: :cry:

[Shakthiprabha.]

ABSOLUTELY GREAT MESSEGE. sensible in everyway....

Its better to die once, than to die with pain 10000 times, every second.

[pavalamani pragasam]

The magazine section of today’s(10-4-’05) The New Sunday Express has published this interesting article by Timeri N Murari:

An ode to euthanasia
If humans lived for ever, what’ll happen to this earth?

At one time, Eskimos would carry their very old and infirm, after a simple ceremony of goodbye, out onto the ice and leave them there to die, either from the cold or to be eaten by the bears. This primitive form of euthanasia was very necessary as the harsh environment and limited food supply would not afford support to anyone who could not contribute to the survival of the tribe. Of course, the unhealthy never survived long anyway. In the wild, animals kill their young if they judge it will not be able to survive or if it will unbalance the pack or family unit. Primitive man too must have allowed the infirm, young or old, to die, and moved on in his perpetual search for food. Nature never has any patience for those who cannot fend for themselves.

Man has evolved since those days, and bounded free from the natural laws of survival. Medical science today can perform miracles, unimagined, except in science fiction, even a century or two ago. Today, virtually any one of our internal organs can be repaired or replaced, excluding the brain. No doubt that will happen too one day but until that day comes, and if the brain dies, we’re ‘dead’ too. We can be given artificial limbs, and the blind another person’s eyes. With such advances, our collective dream is to live forever. There are some who believe that one day we will perform the ultimate miracle, reserved only for the gods –raise the dead. In America, cryonics is in its infancy and there are a few people who have been frozen in nitrogen( or whatever chemical) for that day of medical resurrection. Having advanced so much in medical science to keep us alive and functioning, there is the understandable reluctance to take the life of someone who is in a coma. A miraculous day may yet arrive to breathe life back into the brain. Or replace it. When that does happen, we won’t need to debate the question of euthanasia, no doubt it will ever be over whose brain we receive.

Ancient Greek thinkers have favoured euthanasia, even though they opposed suicide. An exception is Hippocrates(460-370 BC), the ancient Greek physician, who in his famous oath states that “I will not prescribe a deadly drug to please someone, nor give advice that may cause his death.” During the Renaissance, English humanist Thomas More (1478-1535) defended Euthanasia in book “Utopia”(1516). More describes in idealic terms the function of hospitals. Hospital workers watch after patients with tender care and do everything in their power to cure ills. However, when a patient has a tortuous and incurable illness, the patient has the option to die, either through starvation or opium. In New Atlantis(1627), British philosopher Francis Bacon(1561-1626) writes that physicians are “not only to restore health, but to mitigate pain and dolours; and not only such mitigation may conduce to recovery, but when it may serve to make a fair and easy passage.”

Prolonging life is the privilege of the wealthy, as is good medical care. There is a saying that if the rich could pay the poor to die for them, there would be no poverty left in the world. It’s a matter of economics and, when I think about Terri Schiavo’s 15 year coma –hospital bed, nursing care, doctors, drips, nutrition –and knowing the exorbitant costs of American health care, I am in awe. Did she have Blue Cross picking up the tab? Mentioning mundane money may sound frivolous when discussing a “right-to-life” issue but it’s a very vital part of the debate. Who can afford to financially support a Terri Schiavo for so many years? Certainly, only wealthy countries like America and those in Europe. In other parts of the world, including India, we cannot afford such a luxury of financial expenditure in the hope that one day- how many years?-our loved one will wake from the long sleep. We’re a country where our poor sell their kidneys to the rich in order to survive. Now, if that isn’t economics of medicine and immortality, what is? If the Terri Schiavo’s were of Asian or other ethnic origin, I wondered whether there would be such a heated debate on the right to “pull-the-plug”, “disconnect-the-feeding tube”.

I am moved by the small advertisements in our newspapers with the photograph of someone, often a child, pleading for financial assistance for a major operation. In my own experience with orphans, I know that a baby born with any kind of “anomaly”( a medical term meaning major problem) is immediately surrendered to an orphanage by its parents. It’s only because the parents –always the poor- can foresee the costs of supporting and raising the child. They just cannot afford it and, the orphanage, to them, is the equivalent of the ice flows of the Arctic. Better to let the infirm child float away and die, and not drag us down further.

I believe medical science can perform a few miracles but there should be a time limit for coma patients. I would certainly want the plug to be pulled on me should my coma last longer than a year, and that will be a clause in my will. Hey, let me go and let my wife continue with her own life. I am thinking too of the emotional burden on those who keep watch by our bedsides. I have nothing but admiration for Terri’s husband, who kept this vigil, but also compassion for him to have been placed on emotional hold for so many years. Quite rightly, he decided that the wife he loved(and could not love him back) needed to be released from her vegetative existence. She had left him long ago, and now he is free to take up his own life once again.

Even as medical science continues to perform such miracles and, that one day we can live forever, the question is not only who will be lucky ones chosen for such immortality but also can the earth sustain immortal human beings? That’s not in its blueprint.


Meet the writer at:www.timerimurari.com

[Badri]

Wow! Kudos to Mrs PP for once again introducing a tough moral proposition!!!

My grandmother was ill...very ill, and suffering towards the end. She begged more than once to stop all medication, and allow her to pass peacefully, than to be kept alive in pain. My grandfather could not bear it, and even asked us for suggestions...he said he was willing to stop all medication, which would by itself bring about the end. We opposed, vehemently. I was at the fore, angry with my grandad for even having suggested it...to me, he appeared cruel...

My grandmom passed away shortly thereafter, despite going ahead with the medication, and two years later, my grandad slipped into a semi-coma. We continued the life support systems till finally the end came naturally.

In both instances, despite the pain or the cost, we just did not want to do anything that could bring the end any closer...was it selfishness? Was it love? Was it hope that somehow, everything will become alright again, and to pull the plug would bring a premature end to what might become better?

Yes, in older socities, this was a common thing. "Mudumakkal thazhis" were a common feature, found even in the ruins of Mohenjadaro and Harappa. Almost all primitive tribes practice some form of euthanasia even today. So, would we be also considered primitive then, if we were to follow those same traditions? Where is civilization then?

Mrs PP quoted the Spartans and TN Murari, who in turn quoted the Eskimos. But if the fact that early scocities practiced some form it were a license for euthanasia, then, even rudimentary medication should be stopped! After all, it is survival of the fittest, why support the unfit with medication? Why take the new born to even a hospital? Let us see if the new born child is strong enough to weather its first disorders and diseases by itself.

Why bother with caesarian sections for pregnancy? Let the mother and child die then, if they are not "biologically" fit!!

When stated like this, I am sure all of us would realize how ridiculous that argument is. It may have been ok in primitive societies. Not in today's world. Will any mother, including those women in this hub who have so supported euthanasia be willing to go ahead with that for her child?

Hope is life...hope keeps us alive. In not letting our loved ones die, we are hoping they will recover. What if...what if the beloved one recovers? Should we not give them that time?

Again, Mrs PP quoted the Bhagvad Gita...going by the dicates of Karma, euthanasia is like suicide in that it leaves an incomplete life...which is against all shastraic principles. Simply going by that, it would have to be unacceptable. A view that is supported by every religion. No religion condones suicide, and for that same reason, would not condone euthanasia either

No, no matter how you view it, euthanasia cannot be accepted in human society. And calling it "mercy killing" is the greatest farce of all!

[Roshan]

badri,

:thumbsup: I hold the same view as yours !!

[pavalamani pragasam]

[tscii:00e72a0c46]From today’s “Hindustan Times”:

Sooner or later; we will have to accept euthanasia as a right over my dead body

Worldwide, the buzz is getting louder; is the right to die a legitimate right?

Countries wil, sooner or later, have to allow reason and religion to work out ways in which the terminally ill will be allowed to end their life if they want.

The arguments for making euthanasia are many, as are the opposing points of view.

As medicine and technology extend lifespans, a growing ageing population is demanding quality of life in its last years, and in the event of lack of that, the right to die with dignity.

The concept of euthanasia is not that of withdrawing treatment that has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or unwanted. It is instead the expression of the right to die with dignity.

The constitution of India only upholds the sanctity of human life. It does not define life. The fundamental right to life in the constitution says a person cannot be denied the right to live except in acceptance with procedures defined by law. But since laws are only man-made and not always perfect, they can be changed, adapted and even improved.

Regulating euthanasia is not a wish or a dream or something unreasonable. At the same time, the frequency of requests is also growing.

The real challenge in framing a law would be to protect both the doctors’ and the patient’s autonomy. This could be made possible if reasonable palliative care is taken into account in any patient’s decision-making process about assisted suicide. The idea is to allow the patient to make informed choices.

The way things are, the real buzz is why shouldn’t euthanasia be a legitimate right?
[/tscii:00e72a0c46]

[Badri]

:huh:

All I can do is answer this by pointing once more to my post above!

[Sandeep]

[tscii:d2607b7cf6]
The way things are, the real buzz is why shouldn’t euthanasia be a legitimate right?

Though I was of the opinion that euthanasia should be legalised the following points places me in doubt.

Euthanasia is not about the right to die. It's about the right to kill.

Euthanasia is not about giving rights to the person who dies but, instead, is about changing the law and public policy so that doctors/relatives & others can directly and intentionally end another person's life. Suicide and attempted suicide are not criminalized in most countries (India is an exception). Suicide is a tragic, individual act but euthanasia is not about a private act. It's about letting one person facilitate the death of another. That is a matter of very public concern since it can lead to tremendous abuse, exploitation and erosion of care for the most vulnerable people among us.

Should people be forced to stay alive?
No. And neither the law nor medical ethics requires that "everything be done" to keep a person alive. There comes a time when continued attempts to cure are not compassionate, wise, or medically sound. That's where palliative care, including in-home palliative care, can be of such help. That is the time when all efforts should be placed on making the patient's remaining time comfortable as well as to the provision of emotional and spiritual support for both the patient and the patient's loved ones.

Unbearable pain as the reason for euthanasia
Field of medicine has advanced to an extent that people can be drugged into a no-pain state. Every person is entitled to pain relief. But most people dont have access because of economic reasons and lack of awareness amound health care proffesionals. But the solution to this is not killing.[/tscii:d2607b7cf6]

[Sandeep]

[tscii:902e06fe30]Countries that permited Euthanasia
Australia (law was repealed later),

The Netherlands (Only country where Doctors organization have supported Euthanasia. As of 1991 9% of annual deaths where through Euthanasia. Of which 1/3rd was without consent or knowledge of the patient)

Belgium


Death-by-laptop (Australia)

The method used in Australia was described as "death-by-laptop." To facilitate the deaths, Doctor made house calls. He carried an old grey suitcase that held his laptop, plastic tubing, and a pump-driven syringe filled with barbiturates. After the patient was connected to the computer a series of 3 questions appeared on the computer screen:

1) Are you aware that if you go ahead to the last screen and press the ‘yes’ button, you will be given a lethal dose of medicine and die? Yes / No
2) Are you certain you understand that if you proceed and press the ‘yes’ button on the next screen, you will die? Yes / No
3) In 15 seconds you will be given a lethal injection. Yes / No

Clicking "yes" for each of three questions, activated a syringe driver and a sequential delivery of death-inducing drugs.

The sole doctor who conducted Euthanasia in Australia later acknowledged, "You can’t help but feel like an executioner." "You get to know people," he said, "and then you just end up one day killing them."

This software was available as a freeware over the internet.
You don’t need a doctor the "COGen" machine (Australia)
In Dec 2002 "COGen" machine was unveiled. The device generates carbon monoxide delivered to the recipient through nasal prongs.

As the celebrity speaker at Hemlock’s 13th Biennial Conference held in San Diego, the inventor told a cheering audience, "You don’t need a doctor! You can die without one! You can do it! You can do it yourself!"

"euthanasia kits" (Belgium)
"euthanasia kits" would be available soon in more than two hundred Belgian pharmacies so that doctors could carry out in-home deaths with greater ease. Reports indicated that the kits will contain a barbiturate, a paralyzing agent, an anesthetic, and instructions for use, and will cost approximately 45 Euros[/tscii:902e06fe30]

[pavalamani pragasam]

Informative :shock: :(

[Anoushka]

[tscii:fec9d2c1f3]I can't even think of legalising Euthanasia.

My Grand mom was in bed for more than eight years. Name a disease and she had it. She had High blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, breast cancer and she had broken her hip bone and they couldn’t operate on her because of all the complications involved. She couldn’t even talk. Her eye sight was ok, as in she could recognise us but that was it!

My Grand Dad was the one who used to take care of her full time, we had her in a hospital for more than two years, in a private room and we all would take turns spending time with her. She was bathed and cleaned everyday, we would take her out in a wheel chair everyday. You know what kept her alive through all this, her will to survive! She wanted to live to see her children and grand children around all the time. My summer vacations were more hospital vacations as I spent my two months doing nothing but spending time with her and still I didn’t mind. In fact they were some of the best days!

In the end she died of food poisoning. As far as I know she was sick and in bed, sometimes even making her sit to feed her would be a big hassle for me to handle alone and never once did I think that she was suffering and she was better dead than alive.

Even in her last days, she enjoyed when we sat beside her and told her stories of how she would tell us the same two stories. She could not tell us what she felt but her eyes would tell us her joys of seeing us around her and the fact that she was alive to see us graduate and start working, etc.

I don’t think I would ever want to miss any of those moments. If Euthanasia was legalised then maybe doctors would have suggested that she be killed years before she died. We would have missed precious few years of spending time with her. I would have missed doing for my grandma what she did for me – taking care! I would have missed those cute “bokkai vai” smiles when I told her little incidents that happened during the day.

I remember another relative coming to see her in the hospital thinking she was in her last stage (6 years before she actually died) and in a few weeks he died of heart attack himself. Death comes naturally, no one can say who will die when. So why do we want to take it in our hand and decide for some one else?
[/tscii:fec9d2c1f3]

[pavalamani pragasam]

Anoushka, euthanasia is not for people like your grandma. Definitely not. Nobody will welcome the idea of putting a person to death just because of of a number of handicaps. There are people who are terminally ill, at death's gate, in the pangs insufferable pain, in comatose condition, beyond hope of recovery & in practically dead state who need not suffer unnecessarily any longer. People with keen awareness of their surroundings, near & dear ones, and an active interest in the happenings around them can never be considered as fit candidates for euthanasia by anybody in their right senses. But there ARE situations when euthanasia is a blessing. Of course, like all blessings it has the disadvantage of being abused.

[ssanjinika]

My aunt is suffering from a rare form of bone cancer.
She has been fighting it for the last 5 years.Yes it is a very very painful
disease and we know it is terminal.But we are still fighting to keep her alive.Why??
So that she can enjoy life more?Hell!! She is in so much pain that she probably feels that life is
the worst punishment a person can get.
I lost my father suddenly last month.It was unexpected and a great shock.Even now it is so hard for me to believe he is gone.
I live in the US and my dad was there in Chennai.I spoke to him once a week for maybe 10 mins and hadnt seen him in 2 years,
then why is it so painful to let him go ?Because somewhere he was there...alive.
Yes even if a loved one is not in front of us but alive somewhere,
or is fighting to live in front of us but alive neverthless, just the thought that they are there gives us a kind of peace.
So we will do what ever necessary to keep my aunt alive.Struggle
hard to see that she experiences a little less pain but nonetheless do what it takes to keep her alive.
Its selfish of us agreed.But human nature is selfish!

[Anoushka]

Mrs.PP, I should say the same grandma that lived through all this was in a stage where she was brought back from the operating theatre because she was dying! The doctors nearly suggested taking her off drugs and life support machines then. None of us had the mind to give up, she lived for another six years after that.

If we had listened to the doctors and the people around us we would have lost her. It would have been a sure case for Euthanasia then, the pain she was going through was enormous, but she came through everything! So who are we to say who should die? If abortion for any reason is a crime then how can Euthansia be justified?

[rajraj]

pp,Anoushka and sanjinika,

Euthanasia is being promoted in the west (US) by some doctors to end suffering by terminal patients ( mostly at the patients' requests). Unlike India, the sick parents and grandparents are not taken care of by their children and grandchildren in most cases. They are sent to hospices or nursing homes for terminally ill.
I have seen that done by Indians here against the advise and request by friends. There are a number of reasons for that kind of action.
The people who could take care are too busy with their own lives and are also selfish in many instances. The cost of home care is not affordable for the average wage earner. Even for the well to do it is a burden. The cost of nursing home care is also very high. A good percentage of the population in the US does not have health insurance. Above all, the children and grandchildren do not want to see their loved ones suffer. If the quality of life for the terminally ill is so low, the loved ones exercise the option for euthanasia. It is the difference in culture between the US and India makes us look at it differently. May be , the west is influencing India a lot more these days!

[pavalamani pragasam]

Regarding Anoushka's reference to abortion, in my opinion it is an utterly selfish act. BUT when at an early stage of pregnancy when the scan result shows an abnormality, serious defect in the foetus, in that instance abortion has the grace of euthanasia. Ignoring selfish people who think the ailing elders a burden, euthanasia is still a necessary step in particular patients, unconscious & hopelessly beyond remedy.

[r_kk]

[tscii:dfc0121cf6]
...when at an early stage of pregnancy when the scan result shows an abnormality, serious defect in the foetus, in that instance abortion has the grace of euthanasia. Ignoring selfish people who think the ailing elders a burden, euthanasia is still a necessary step in particular patients, unconscious & hopelessly beyond remedy.

I second the above opinion of PP madam.

Abortion (at very early stage, before fetus developing sensory organs preferably) should be an acceptable solution for the victims of rape cases too.

Before writing anything whether the concept of “chosen death” or Euthanasia is right or wrong, let me explain whether we import such concepts from western countries or we had it already?

Based on my childhood experience in villages, I can say that these kinds of concepts are/were partially existed in our places too (rare incidences) . In my village, there were few old women, who are known for this kind of job. It is rarely done to the very old people, particularly when they are about to die but prolonging over the period where most of the relatives those who had come for the final ceremony, lost their patience. I heard that in such cases the death is brought by applying large amount of oil (nallennai or vilakennai) over the head. Some times I suspect (not sure!) giving water at the final moments may also induce the death by chocking the respiratory organs.

We also had the concept of “sati” “vadakirunthu uyirneethal” and preparing the death by reducing the food intake and by other means, as methods of preferred death. In most of the oriental culture, killing self or get assistance from other warrior was very common when they lose the honor or heavily injured in the war.

Then, the meaning of the term “Euthanasia” is very wide. It can’t be compared with killing. Killing means taking one’s life against his/her wish.
[/tscii:dfc0121cf6]

[C-Vasi]

I am not talking about "euthanasia" or "mercy-killing" for I believe that when we cannot give life to someone we have no right to take it away. That may also be held as an argument against death penalty but that's up to you.

There are times when I ponder whether life should still be lingering in someone's body.

I personally know four or five people who are above 90 years of age who until some years ago answered the door-bell or worked in the kitchen, removing the pressure cooker off the stove and placing it on the platform and things like that.

But today a couple of them are in bed unable even to get up without assistance. Mind you, they are not ill. Just the infirmities of age.

I am all praise for the relatives of these people who stand by them, answering every summon of theirs with not a word of resentment.

[pavalamani pragasam]

r_kk, did you read through my article at the beginning of this thread?

What C_Vasi says recalls to my mind a custom we learnt about in our school books about our ancient tradition: "muthumakkaL thaazi"!

[pavalamani pragasam]

Some of the options I have heard of for "relieving a terminally ailing person at the footstep of death are 'thulasi' water & milk!

[r_kk]

[tscii:d6762daf80]
r_kk, did you read through my article at the beginning of this thread?

I read only the page 2. I will try to read all the posts in this thread and then give my opinion when I get some time.


Some of the options I have heard of for "relieving a terminally ailing person at the footstep of death are 'thulasi' water & milk!

yah, I also heard about using "Milk" for this purpose (is it called "paalutruthal or the ceremony after cremation?).

In my place, we celebrate the peaceful death of very old persons, who had lived his/her life completely. In my grandmother’s case, she had requested my father to arrange “parai” and “throwing of country sugar (vellakatti)” during her last procession. We had performed as per her wish. During last period of her life, she was mentally (detaching the attachments) and physically (reducing the food intake) prepared herself for death. I didn’t cry even for a second but still I remember her for many of her great qualities and appreciate the old village illiterate women for teaching and accepting unavoidable death.

I feel, life supporting devices or pain killers for the terminally ill patients may be helpful to make relatives (and hospitals) happy but the patient might have preferred rather death (in few cases at least) if he/she would have had any conscious to decide.[/tscii:d6762daf80]

[Badri]

I feel, life supporting devices or pain killers for the terminally ill patients may be helpful to make relatives (and hospitals) happy but the patient might have preferred rather death (in few cases at least) if he/she would have had any conscious to decide.

Quick question to PP and others: What is the difference between suicide and this? Is suicide a legal and moral option therefore?

[Sandeep]

What is the difference between suicide and this? Is suicide a legal and moral option therefore?

In case of Suicide the moral question is "Can a person kill himself".

While in case of euthanasia the moral questions are still complex.

1) Can a person kill himself
2) Can a person assist or perform the murder of another person with his/his relatives permission.
3) How will it effect the moral and phycology of the Health care professionals who are as of now groomed only to save life.

[Badri]

Exactly, Sandeep!

While suicide is ambigous enough, euthanasia is suicide plus a host of other complexities thrown in for good measure!! How then can it be a sensible option?

Should the living live with the guilt of having killed another person, albeit in deference to their wishes? :roll:

[r_kk]

[tscii:d63973f756]

Quick question to PP and others: What is the difference between suicide and this? Is suicide a legal and moral option therefore?
Badri,
You are asking a very difficult question to answer. The choice is more of individual preferences, values and situations.

Let me ask two questions, even thought it may looks like out of subject.
1. Do you feel any difference between Dilipan (Tamil Eelem commander) choosing death through fasting and a useless fellow attempting suicide because of not getting ticket for a movie? Please remember that many freedom fighters and ideologist had chosen death instead of saving their own life.

2. Do you think that Governments can keep Army to legally kill or get killed in some activities which are ideologically against their policies? Do you call such act as “murder” or “suicide”?

If you can answer the above, you may partially get the reply to the questions that you had asked.
[/tscii:d63973f756]

[pavalamani pragasam]

Generally suicide is an easy way out for the coward. BUT there are situations where suicide is glorious! Except for escapist, frightened persons, suicide has made heroes & heroines, very honourable indeed, down the pages of world history! If Gandhi, a mahatma can want a suffering goat to be put to sleep, why not terminate the physically tormented, mentally unconscious, hopelessly ill dear ones? Will that not be a service in fact? Where comes guilt? Rather one shall be filled with satisfaction of sparing the dear one unwanted, intolerable torture! Of it wants a lot of deep conviction, confidence & clarity of thought.