As you sow, so shall you reap.
“To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted” - Ecclesiastes 3:1-2 (Bible).
Scenario 1: A person commits a heinous crime, and is charge-sheeted. He is tried in a district court and is found guilty. He challenges it in the high court, guilty again. Finally he challenges it in the supreme court, but to no avail. The court decides that he should be "Hanged to Death".
Verdict: The highest judicial body decided to end the criminal's life.
Scenario 2: Due to some accident / event, a person becomes paralyzed. He is in a vegetative state and the doctors (even the best) say that science hasn't developed enough to help the person recover. Science can, at max, prolong his life (at a cost, which is high enough for a middle class family to afford). Finally, after a lot of thought, his family applies for Euthanasia (mercy-killing). Theres a catch, though. In India, Euthanasia is not legal. The supreme court decides against the euthanasia plea.
Verdict: The highest judicial body decided not to end the law-abiding citizen's life.
I am not comparing the two protagonists over here. There is no way we can even remotely compare a criminal with any law-abiding citizen.
I am pointing out the dubious ways in which justice is perceived.
A criminal will and should be punished, based on the crime he has committed. But death? I am sure none of the religion talks about killing a fellow human being. Do we have the 'right' to kill anyone? Are even even 'eligible' to kill anyone?
Having said that, if a person who is terminally ill, wants to peacefully end his life for a reason that is valid in the eyes of his family / near ones, and is requesting for the same, do we have the authority to allow / disallow his request?
I am sure this debate will go on. But one thing is for sure, if we have the right to end a person's life (criminal, as in scenario 1), and we can't grant an ailing person his last wish (to die), we are being hypocrites.
PS: This blog is not on Euthanasia, neither am I against a death sentence. It only questions the morality of judgement.
The problem with supreme court or law making agencies is their social responsibility. If they allow or reject either of them then it encourage many other to do the same.
ReplyDeleteYou are right Rahul. Allowing Euthanasia will also allow misusing Euthanasia. And in our country, there is a huge scope for misusing it.
ReplyDeleteVery subjective topic my friend ;)
ReplyDeleteYes it questions morality but then if we don't it threatens social security
Thanks Adi :)
ReplyDeleteThe topic itself is so subjective that I am sure whatever conclusion we reach, there will still be a sizable opposition...