Do You Agree With Indian Supreme Court's Decision In Aruna Shanbaug's Case?

I disagree with the Supreme Court's verdict. It's total injustice to Aruna.
If she IS willing to die and wants to get the permission legally, the court should have accepted her petition.
Why doesn't the court understand the gravity of the situation and the sincerity in her plea.
Can the court offer to give all the expenses to take care of her situation for her whole life till her natural death? Or can the court give her some advanced medication and cure her?

She has lived a life of dignity and it's high time that they let her die peacefully.

I also don't agree with the court's decision. I think she should be freed of the agony and pain she is bearing from 37 years.

Well, Euthanasia is a very sensitive subject. There are some countries where Euthanasia is legally allowed.

From a neutral point, in order to allow this, we should make euthanasia legal. We can't allow only one instance of it and say no to the others with similar plea.
There comes the problem. In countries where it's allowed, I sure hope better implementation and verification mechanisms are in place.

My point is, in a country like India, with its levels of corruption, we can't always be sure if the one requesting euthanasia is really in need of it or not.
Also, once done, the action cannot be undone. So, we should have proper methods to check and verify before we can talk about legalizing euthanasia.

So, even though my support lies with Aruna, I don't support Euthanasia as yet.

Our Courts follow IPC! They follow only the sections, they won't understand the situation. They give verdicts from their Book not from their Heart! I wonder seeing this verdict, Aruna can't do anything for her dependents, Even though the court given such an useless judgment!
Its Okey, *Killing* is avoided in INDIA either it is mercy or suicide or death sentence or other!

But Some Amendments should be needed in the IPC!

I totally agree with SS!

In a country like India if Euthanasia is made legal then there would be no doubt there will be many petitions which are illegal. I support Aruna , but making Euthanasia legal in India a big NO..

Firstly, its her friends who had pleaded on behalf of Aruna , so we dont have a stand on saying ' that she asked for Euthanasia and one case allowed , there would pop up similar instances . the court has already pointed out that - someone else can plea for Euthanasia on someelse behalf in may be not with good intentions.
Also, the court had a point in saying ' we are not the ones who decide when someone should live and someone should die'
the court has as well considered the grant of passive Euthanasia where, say ventilators would be stopped and thus fasten up the process.

if we start taking things by heart, then ( many might criticise me here) - corruption too is a thing of heart. You tend not to follow the rules, and start following to do good to yourself and your family by accumilating wealth beyond ones need.Rules are made only for such situations where thinking by heart conflicts with thoughts of mind and rules helps in resolving this conflict.

What if the victim can't talk or communicate? Someone else will have to take the decision, right?

ture. But when the victim themselves cant ask what (s)he wants/ how can we know what is right for them? We feel the pain of seeing them in sucha codnition, hence we are taking the decision to terminate their life, but how is that being justified saying the victim cant defend?

I do support Passive Euthanasia, where there will be no attempts to keep someone alive are made. But deciding on someone else behalf whthere they should live or die- I dotn support it

She is brain-dead. So she is not asking for Euthanasia. Also, if the SC agrees for one case, it becomes a law! Mercy killing can't be made legal in India as of now. Hence SC has to be very careful while taking a decision. Right now, attempt to suicide is a crime in India. AND IT CAN'T BE MADE LEGAL !!
Basically There are three types of Euthanasia.
1. Voluntary: with the consent of the person
2. NON-Voluntary: in this case person's consent can't be taken (case of Aruna)
3. Involuntary: Forced to die without consent!
and 2 ways to kill:
Active: Some techniques are used to kill. (can we call it a murder??)
Passive: The aids that are keeping the person alive are stopped. And the person eventually dies (not a murder!)
And If its is made legal, many many problems are going to follow!
There are many movies (a movie called "Sukhant" in Marathi which I have seen) that have brought up this critical issue for the general public.

This Reminds me Hindi Movie Guzarish.

I@ Durga - I am in 100 % agreement with you on this topic.

And by the way why these "SOCIAL ACTIVISTS" woke up after 37 years of her being in come. More so over, Aruna is just one such case, if we will try searching such cases, all over india we will get 100's of such cases.

On top of this, court had given a big NO to Active Euthnasia; they had given a go ahead to Passive Euthanasia (case to case). Also, court told that in case of Passive Euthanasia as well, SOCIAL ACTIVISTS have no rights to plea. Only hospital management, doctors, nurses and Aruna's Family members can plea for Passive Euthnasia.

In a country like India and considering its medical / and law structure, I am fully in agreement with court decision.

-CB

@CrazyBoy: "these "SOCIAL ACTIVISTS" woke up after 37 years" ????
What?? Dude, this topic has come up many times before! Its just this time you are reading it/ watching it on news.