Euthanasia

The euthanasia issue has finally taken on a human face, in Mumbai at least, after this compassionate article in the Mumbai Mirror on parents pleading that their child be allowed to die. Little one-year old Mahesh Pujari is the child of labourers and is afflicted with hydrocephalus and thoracolumbar, which basically renders him something of a vegetable - his spinal cord is useless, and the excessive water accumulated in his brain doesn’t allow it to grow. He can't control his bladder and cries constantly. His parents, Sangappa and Anusuya Pujari have exhausted their funds trying to treat him, and have been denied the hope of guarantee even if they can gather funds for the multiple treatments and surgeries he would have to undertake to repair his spinal column and remove the abnormal growth on his back, not to mention constant physiotherapy through most of his childhood if not his adulthood.

I was reduced to tears reading about his parents’ misery at his plight. His mother is so young… not much more than a girl herself, the innocence of life evident on her face, and the resignation to her fate. Imagine her fears – she may not ever be able to conceive a healthy child, maybe she isn’t able to afford the right nutrition, maybe she did something wrong in her previous life, all this, to her, adds up to this child who is anything but a bundle of joy. She has fed and raised him in her womb, which to her has proved to be inadequate. Can she bear to see her child suffer? Can any parent? Especially when the child has not even done anything wrong? Parents still feel pain when their child has to suffer if he has gone astray, even if he is an adult. But an adult offspring has put himself in an unfortunate situation through his own actions, or at the very least, it’s circumstantial. But aninfant? An infant who is unable to feel the joy of discovery of a world outside the womb, whose parents are not allowed the joy of seeing him grow? He exists in a world of nothing, of unverbalised and unheard screams, and his parents have to suppress theirs. Is this living? Is this mercy?

My mother always said that she wouldn’t cry if her child were a stillborn, because that meant that his karma was so little that it was fulfilled merely by being born, and that by dying, he would be in a better place. But imagine having a child who is dead to you? Whom you are dead to? And his only sensation is pain?

Maybe it is karma. But who is the state to impose a ban on the taking of life? Who is a state to decree that karma must be lived out? I don’t agree. Maybe my views are firmly liberal, and in some aspects verging on libertarian, but I believe that an individual’s decision to live should be firmly his choice, whether it is suicide or euthanasia. I realize I am contradicting myself here, and that what I am saying is controversial simply because it can and is being misinterpreted and will be taken to extremes. In India, you are fined if you attempt suicide. So it isn’t bad enough that your life is so intolerable that you decided to end it, but if you don’t succeed, then you not only have to live with the disgrace of being ‘the mentally unstable suicidal person’, but also have a fine slapped on you the minute you come to consciousness. Talk about adding insult to injury! It’s like punishment for failing to commit a ‘crime’.
But suicide apart, I think even a terminally ill or disabled patient has the right to decide to end his own life. You will no doubt say “But if he is ill, that is his karma; it is only good for him to live out his sad destiny now so he may move on to a better existence in his next life.” I myself have been raised with the concept of karma firmly ingrained in me, and I know that for me and for others like me, that is what stops us from implementing our thoughts of suicide – our fear that we may never be redeemed because in most religions, killing oneself as opposed to others is the greater sin, besides the social stigma we and our families may have to face if we were to fail. But shouldn’t a sane adult have a choice as to how he wants to end his life, is he is given a choice by society as to how he wants to conduct it?

So it essentially boils down to an argument between fatalists and existentialists (?) or whichever the school of people/philosophy is that believes that humans should have the freedom to conduct their own lives.

Let’s take this case, though it seems cruel to reduce such a heartrending human story to a case study. Do we have the right to decide whether a child should live or die? Especially if it is a child that has no mind of its own? (Or maybe because). What about if the child is a burden on the household, both emotionally and financially? What happens if it has no one to look after it when its parents die? It would be left to starve and die right? What guarantee is there that it would be allowed to live in dignity as an adult? Maybe, you’d say, it’s the mother’s destiny/karma to look after the child. Maybe it would die a natural death in the near future. But at what cost to the rest of the family? I know, this sounds like a hard, cold, economic situation, and an excuse that will frequently be taken advantage of. Would families have a child/old person killed because they couldn’t afford to take care of it? Would it be more or less forgivable depending on how much pain the decision caused them? Families have been given the option to take someone off life support, when the person is a vegetable, so why not parents of children with such debilitating illnesses that there is absolutely NO joy in life?

But I think an old person, if s/he is in his/her senses should decide whether s/he wants to opt for euthanasia or not. And it should not be misused. A suitable amount of time, say a week to a month, depending on the seriousness of the illness, should be given for the party to consider his/her decision before the doctor undertakes euthanasia. The doctor should NOT decide, but should give full, objective information and leave the decision to the patient and concerned family members. And there should be signed consent and all that.

The problem with this mercy killing has been the level of misuse possible with it. Doctors might engage in ‘euthanasia’ of patients in order to free up beds in a hospital. (Of course in that case it is no longer euthanasia, it is murder, and the doctor is solely responsible and MUST be charged). But mothers should not be allowed to undertake abortion/foeticide because it is a female, even if there is a congenital disorder unless it’s something life-threatening as opposed to simply inconvenient. Unfortunately that’s a subjective parameter that must be decided on a case-by-case basis. When the entire household is put in crisis because of such a child (and I’m not talking about blond – haha!!!! - BLIND/deaf/mute/handicapped children, but those with seriously low chances of survival or quality of life), maybe then euthanasia is a good option, considering ALL factors. Euthanasia should NEVER be confused with eugenics.

If the government is allowed to issue capital punishment, and take away a person’s life, how can it assume the right to prevent people from dying? Whatever happens to the karma balance there, hypocrites? Citizens should have their own choice, at least in regard to life or death. An individual choosing to die is NOT a law and order issue.

But the good news is that maybe Mahesh Pujari is fated to live!!! A doctor at Lilavati has offered his services free of cost. Maybe karma does play a role after all. I like that Mumbai Mirror is such a participative newspaper!

Hopefully case closed on a positive note!