It took a pretty, young Indian dentist’s life to reveal
the ridiculousness of allowing religion to dictate terms to a modern, civilized
society. Savita Halappanavar would still have been alive, had she stayed back
in India or emigrated to some other place than nutty Ireland. Such gruesome
incidents bring to focus the incompatibility of false beliefs which should have
been exorcised long ago, clinging on to social fabric with such a tenacity
characteristic to religion alone. What difference is there, we may ask, between
Iran and Ireland? The West demonizes the former, heaping choicest abuses on her,
for the inflexibility of its ruling elite's religious dogma. True, but what can we make of
Ireland? Just because it is in Europe, won’t make it progressive as compared to
Iran. If the clerics or mullahs don the mantle of a doctor and takes decisions
on his behalf, as it so happened in Savita’s case, there is not an iota of gap
which separates the supposedly ‘modern’ European nation with Bush’s infamous
‘Axis of Evil’. On the other hand, Iran has millennia of civilization behind
its back while Ireland has nothing but potato peels, and that too, only
for the last two centuries.
While on the subject, it is high time to ask whether a
person should be allowed to die of his own volition. At present, the only
option available to him is suicide, which is messy, illegal if you failed in
the attempt and attaches stigma to the person’s memory and to his relatives
and/or friends. It is incomprehensible why the society do not allow an individual
to quietly retire from life, when he decides he can no longer endure? The
argument most often raised is the exact same one which countries like Ireland raise
in favour of ban on abortion, that life is precious, it is a gift from god, we
should not extinguish it, blah, blah, blah…But, on sanguine analysis, we
understand that while performing abortion, you are killing a human being
against his/her wish, while if you allow a person to die, you have the
conscience clear, in the full knowledge that he had a choice but preferred to
end his own life.
So, I think the argument for Voluntary Cessation of Life,
VCL in short (anything noteworthy must have an impressive title and an
acronym!) is unassailable. In a nutshell, if you permit abortion to kill a
child against its wish, you have no moral high ground not to allow a mentally
healthy adult to die of his own choice. Sooner or later, society has to accede
to this perfectly justifiable demand. When that time comes, I recommend the
following mechanism to regulate its administration.
1. A person aspiring to end his life notifies a magistrate designated for
the purpose through a lawyer. The magistrate checks whether he is of legal age
as the first step.
2. The magistrate assigns the person to psychiatric counseling to
determine whether he is mentally sound and asks to report back after a
cooling off period (preferably a month) to see that he is determined.
3. Even after one month, if the person is desirous of ending his life, he
approaches the magistrate again with the counseling report and proof that he
has properly relinquished his duties and responsibilities in the case of a
public servant.
4. The magistrate then issues a decree directing the administrator of a
designated hospital to end the petitioner’s life by palliative sedation.
5. The person approaches the hospital and submits consent for donating his
organs such as eyes, kidneys and liver to needy patients in a
public-administered waiting list and his body for medical research. This should be mandatory.
6. The hospital authorities then put him to eternal sleep by palliative sedation, taking care that internal organs are not damaged.
Sounds cruel, right? But think about what’s happening
now. What do we expect of soldiers marching on to the battle field? We hope and
sometimes demand that they lay down their lives (a convenient euphemism for
asking them to die) for the society’s sake, confronting the enemy. And, the
expectations are not much different when coal workers are sent underground in
mines having shafts running several kilometers long, which may cave in or may
be flooded with water, turning the mine into a mass grave in a matter of minutes.
Coal is a precious commodity essential to the well being of a society, so we
don’t mind risking the lives of a few individuals. These two examples, which
are not exclusive illustrations of such occurrences illuminatingly convey the
idea that we are willing to let some of us die or be killed (to make it more
precise) if that act is going to accrue some benefit to the society as a whole.
Then why should we shy away from the demand that a person’s genuine wish to die
should not be satisfied in a legal framework? Remember the advantages – his
body and organs will be donated! One who thinks rationally does not find even a
single point to be raised against it.
Some minor issues which may be postulated against the
notion of voluntary death is the plight of that person’s dependents. True,
after their breadwinner’s demise, they are left to fend for themselves, which
might not be easy, always. If they are to become beneficiaries of the state’s
welfare measures, the whole purpose of benefit to society is defeated. There is
some reality here and it must be addressed. When the person who is trying to
die appears before the court for the second and final time, the magistrate can
demand that he furnish satisfactory proof of providing for his dependents in
the event of his death. This measure will turn out to be a deterrent for people
who want to die in order to escape financial problems. If you have no
money to care for your dependents, you will not be allowed to die – as simple
as that. This helps to filter out unwanted flotsam and end up with people who
have done their duties well, are content with the life they lived and only want
to end it in a smooth way, without bothering anyone. The satisfaction of
knowing that their organs live on is an added sweetener.
We may conclude that it is time to think about voluntary
cessation of life in a serious way. Life is a complex process with two definite
points – the beginning and the end. The former is not under our control, so let
the latter is!
