Can Man play God: Should Euthanasia be legalised

Man, god’s favorite child, has been bestowed upon with rare gifts -the ability to control his fellow beings, command food, comfort and power. But there are things that are out of bounds even to him –his arrival on earth and departure from it: to shed he euphemism, his birth and death. Thus, when an attempt is made to control these, it leads to an ethical conflict. Euthanasia or mercy-killing is an issue toeing this line, and hence carries profound moral implications. It is therefore imperative for anyone to discuss both sides of this issue, before attempting any judgment.

What is worse than death; it is suffering, agony. An active brain caged in a body it cannot control, a world it can perceive but cannot pertain to – isn’t this the very epitome of agony? This is the plight of the ‘brain-dead’. They are called ‘vegetables’, they are the living-dead. Alive but not awake - the comatose and their loving relatives biding time in anguish –isn’t this desperation personified. Devoid of medical hope, spiraling down the path of no return, Euthanasia seems the only logical solution to their predicament, it is the panacea. Many argue that it is but an act of coup de grace.

Man conquers new frontiers everyday. Medical advances and break-throughs renew hopes for many. ‘Medical miracles’ have brought back people from virtual death. There have been instances of coma patients recovering after two decades. This ray of hope makes the kith and kin of the patients pursue treatment and life-support for their loved ones with blind hope, surmounting all odds. But how long will they endure this?

Contrary to popular misconception and much to the dismay of detractors of mercy-killing, the relatives of these patients turn into vociferous advocates of euthanasia. After the initial period of seemingly undiminished hope, they begin to understand the sufferings of the patients and come to terms with the practical questions o affordability of treatment, chances of recovery, and the point(-less ness?) in waiting for miracles. In a recent case that raked up the topic, an acute paralytic from Andhra wished to donate his organs for which he would have to embrace death earlier than it threatened to reach him. But he as denied his last wish by the law, he died a couple of days later, an unhappy man.

So what really is the solution? Should euthanasia be legalized? If yes, who is to decide whether a case genuinely warrants it? The doctors, of course. But is it fair to saddle the life preservers with such a burden, because when it is a question of life or death, mistakes should not arise. Imagine having to go to sleep the rest of your life with the miserable feeling that you might have killed someone who might have recovered. It is also important to safeguard against willful medical murders by those with vested interests. Indiscriminate administration of euthanasia by unskilled doctors would amount to the same.

It appears that there can be no generalized verdict on this issue. Each case is unique, should be separately scrutinized and decided upon. However this is neither practical nor cost-effective. Therefore, select doctors could be empowered by the government to use their discretion in this regard, taking into account their merit and records.
With all these safeguards, the devils in our minds can be alleviated considerably, but of course, never rested. For no matter what, man can never play God.