Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, a rape survivor, is locked-up in
her own body since last 41 years to wait for a slow and painful death. She
exists in a kind of semi-conscious limbo. For Aruna, her home has become the
same hospital where she used to serve wholeheartedly.
In 2010, Pinki Virani, Aruna’s friend and
activist-journalist filed a petition for active euthanasia for Shanbaug. But
her plea was rejected by the Supreme Court. Virani did not have any more to say
than a sheer grief over her friend’s pathetic state.
However, one cannot forget that in the Aruna Shanbaug Case,
the euthanasia plea was a small issue compared to the grave injustice done to
her. Her attacker was never charged with rape and in fact, served a relatively
small sentence compared to the brutality of his crime. Her right to die can possibly
be debated, but can any sane person debate her right to justice?
While rejecting Virani’s plea for active euthanasia, the
court laid out guidelines for passive euthanasia. The aim of euthanasia is to
end the suffering and so with passive euthanasia, the doctors halt the
treatment and the patient dies in slow agony. Ironical, isn’t it? Aruna
continues to be in pain since last 41 years. She cannot speak or communicate,
but she is partially conscious. Ever since the Supreme Court’s order, she must have
been agonized with more pain now that all her treatments have stopped.
Shouldn’t the Supreme Court reconsider this ordeal the lady
has faced for her lifetime? Wasn’t that heinous rape enough?
Many religious groups too have slammed the idea of active
euthanasia. They say that God is the
creator of life and only He can take it away. It is against their religion to
kill somebody voluntarily. The court says that passive euthanasia is a more
natural death. But the very idea of less evil or more evil seems baseless.
Doesn’t it?
No comments:
Post a Comment