The Supreme Court of India in this detailed judgement (http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wr1152009.pdf) yesterday in the Aruna Shanbaugh case rejected the euthanasia plea. An interesting look at both ethical positions in this very sad case, the only silver lining to which is perhaps the commitment of the generations of nurses, who have provided such exceptional care, and the debate which it has engendered.
1. The judgement also refers to one of GB Shaw's plays (The Doctor's
Dilemma ) and a Robin Cook novel (Coma) - am not familiar with them, but fascinating that works of fiction have been referenced. A good thing, in my opinion, for there are no very strong barriers between fiction and fact, between what is and what can be, what was and what could have been.
2. Curiously, the judgement refers to "a recent news item which we have come across on the internet". It compares the new item to another case, and the only attribution for either is "(see Terri Schiavo's case on Google)". Surely, this level of attribution is unacceptable in a college paper. Is it acceptable in a Supreme Court ruling?
3. Another good thing is that the judgement recommends to the lawmakers to delete Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code which allows for punishment by imprisonment and monetary fines of those who attempt to commit suicide.
4. The judgement refers to "the unfortunate low level of ethical standards to which Indian society has descended, its raw and widespread commercialization, and rampant corruption".
This language differs from that of the Attorney General: "He (the Attorney General on behalf of the Union of India) further submitted that Indian society is emotional and care-oriented. We do not send our parents to old age homes, as it happens in the West"
Incredible, this pathetic pretence at being holy, ignoring all the abandoned elderly in Varanasi, the abuse women go through in dowry cases, general contempt towards menials, lower-caste members etc. etc..
5. From the judgement: "Hence one is one's brain". (Comma missing in original) Well, that's one philosophical question answered.
6. The judgement starts off by quoting a beautiful verse of Ghalib. Very apt; an old favourite.
7. One of the arguments of the Union of India was that the petition ought to be rejected because the activist Pinki Virani is not really a "next friend" of the afflicted. Fortunately, the court rejected this spiteful and adolescent line of reasoning. And, hearteningly, congratulated Ms. Virani for her actions, even whilst denying her petition.
8. More resources, for a summarized version of the case:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12662124
http://www.blogher.com/rape-has-left-people-wishing-her-dead
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1513/15130740.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment