EUTHANASIA: Is it a Moral Decision
The advancement in the field of medical science and technology has made the issue of euthanasia more relevant and important for the present day society to discuss. Life saving machines and drugs are helping the patients who become incapable of leading their lives independently to live artificially with the help of these life prolonging machines and medicines.
While analyzing the concept of euthanasia. One should keep the interests and benefit of the people in mind. When one decides that a particular case is a case of euthanasia, then not only the 'net benefit' of the patient should be borne in mind, but also the 'general benefit of the society and individuals looking after the patient should be taken into consideration.
We all talk of life styles. The principle of autonomy underscores the right of free men and women to choose the ways in which they want to live. The principle of beneficiaries has value only in terms of choices. The major concern I have and many others, who have a moral concern for human misery is: why should death not have similar choices. Just as a good life requests fore thought and proper planning, similarly death too requires such planning. It is not always the case that death is sudden, we in the contemporary society, do fear when, and how death would occur. The advanced medical science, which has invented ways to save our
lives and postpone death, also underscores the need to decide when to accept death, and prolong it no further. It is the responsibility of
the thoughtful intelligentsia and the physicians to think seriously as to when to prolong life and when not. This realization makes Euthanasia an important and necessary issue to be understood, analyzed, and squarely faced. Euthanasia which means 'Good Death' is not a matter of 'killing' directly or indirectly. It concerns a problem in our society as to how we can make death more gentle and humane, rather than ugly, violent and catastrophic.
'Death with dignity', the issue came into light with the tragic case of Karen Ann Quinlan in 1977.
When, however, one talks of euthanasia, one is talking about a death understood as a good or happy event for the one who dies. Many thinkers have discussed the concept of euthanasia in different ways. Some opponents of euthanasia feel that it is a negative concept as it means killing, which is a negative act. According to them wherever, the word killing occurs whether in abortion, suicide, or murder it leads to some negative, and
-3-
undesirable 'omission'. But on the other hand, the protagonists of 'euthanasia' maintain that 'euthanasia' is for the good of the patient to relieve his pain and suffering.
It is worth pointing out in this regard that in some situations one finds that it is not always good for another person to save some ones life, though a person who saves somebody's life is called his savior. For example, a criminal who is to be hanged is suffering from a painful disease, and the doctor saves him from that pain, but once he is cured he is to be hanged. In this case the doctor might wish that the patient died comfortably of the disease itself. Thus giving him a long stretch of life is not beneficial for him, and generally the doctor’s act would be disapproved.
This example goes on to prove that saving or prolonging a man's life is not always good for him and his family. Thus, we can conclude that life which is normally good and desirable for a person is not always so. Here again an important question arises as to how life and 'good' are connected.
The argument in support of euthanasia forces upon us two human and significant concerns: Compassion for those who are painfully and terminally ill and concern for the human dignity

-4-
associated with freedom of choice. The first argument is extended to include the patient’s right to choose as to how and when he or
she will die. The second argument shows that, if one does not permit euthanasia, it demeans the dignity of human beings, as the question of 'dignity' is directly related to the ability to choose when, how and why they are to live or to die.
An analysis of the concept of euthanasia brings out the following beliefs and propositions:
1.An individual's life belongs to that individual and he or
she has the right to live and to end it in the manner he or she
wishes.
2.The dignity that is attached to personhood by reason of the freedom to make choices, demands also the freedom to take one's own life, (Voluntary euthanasia) or, alternatively, the responsibility lies with the physician, family, or the medical
board (involuntary euthanasia).
3.There are situations making life not worth living, whether the cause is the terminal illness, or incurable physical or mental handicap.

4. What is supreme is the "human dignity" which resides in man's rational capacity to choose and control life and death.
The above-mentioned beliefs and proposition can be said to be resting on the premise-since wide latitude has been given to 'live one's life at one's pleasure', terminating one's life at one's own pleasure should also be included in it.
The life of human biological organism, which ceases to be a 'person' because of above-mentioned reasons, becomes useless, meaningless and is no more worth living. A terminally, ill patient with no hope of any cure, finds his future to be dark and bleak, with no pleasure and joy's of life. His only concern is to be relieved of his intense pain and unbearable suffering. A human being in irreversible coma due to heavy brain damage with no possibility of return to a normal life has no worth, because he is not conscious of anything around him. For such a patient, others who are looking after him should have concern to get him liberated from such a miserable state. The case of seriously defective newborn also falls into the category of coma cases, since he is not competent to express his wish or desire. So, it is the moral obligation on the part of mainly the physician and the family to decide as to how and when the worthless life in such cases should be terminated as suggested
-6-
earlier. Euthanasia, is not a matter of killing anyone. It has become a basic ethical problem, as to what we should do in order to end the intense suffering of the terminally ill and incurable patient.
In Indian ancient thought we believe in the transmigration of the soul and a past and a future birth. Soul is different from the body. It is the body, which suffers and degenerates and not the soul. The soul transmigrate s into another body or attains liberation. In BHAGWAD GITA it is said in one of the verses the following---
“VANSANSI JIRNANI YATHA VIHAYA
NAVANI GRHNATI NARO PARANI
TATHA SARIRANI VIHAYA JIRNANI
ANYANI SAMYATI NAVANI DEHI”
Meaning thereby that –As a man casting off worn-out garments puts on new ones, so the embodied, casting off worn-out bodies enters into others that are new. So death means death of the gross body and not the subtle body that is the soul so in the cases of terminally ill patients it can be said to be morally justifiable to end the suffering of the patient and let the body acquire a new abode.

Voluntary euthanasia is the direct choice of competent patient after discussing his illness with the physician, this is also called the physician-assisted suicide and involuntary euthanasia may be
practiced on incompetent patients who are unable to make such a choice.
The practice of free and informed consent in the case of competent patient is justified both out of respect for the freedom of individuals as well as to achieve their best interests. It is a heterogeneous practice; involves gaining consent not only from the individual about to be treated, but also from the guardians of individuals who are not able to consent for themselves.
The prolongation of life is unnecessary and meaningless in the case of incurable diseases. The medical science has advanced and cures are getting popular, but in most of the cases what it provides is only 'half cures', by which death is averted for sometime and life, which has no purpose, meaning and is painful, is unnecessarily prolonged. This unnecessary prolongation, in my understanding, is sheer cruelty
Most of the medical practitioners decide to ‘let a patient die’ rather than assist him in dying because such a decision coheres with their ethics of treatment or professional ethics ‘the doctors
-8-
aim is to preserve life’ rather than to kill.. But active euthanasia is morally good because it is done with a motive to help the patient. as humans have a right to live, the right to die and the right to die with dignity.
Besides the above-mentioned justification there is another very important aspect. One should not waste limited and costly medical resources in prolonging a life which has ceased to be worthwhile for the patient as well his family, as it constitutes an inordinate or extraordinary drain on the resources of a family or society. This is because such an investment offers little probability of doing anything beyond extending the process of dying.
I maintain that Euthanasia has become the 'basic' need of the present day society, widespread human distress, degradation and human indignity forces us to think seriously about the permissibility of euthanasia at least in the cases of individuals who are terminally ill, or are in varying states of unconsciousness, and cannot communicate or make a plea for their merciful death.
Besides, these painful facts, there are many sensible people who ask for their death because they are conscious of their physical and mental deterioration, know and understand that they have become outward travesty of themselves and they are sensitive to their surroundings and realize the anguish of those who have to nurse them in their miseries.
In conclusion I would like to point out that I support the practice of Euthanasia from the moral point of view but every case should be scrutinized with great care and precaution. There are specified guidelines laid down for allowing the practice of euthanasia. There should be a monitoring committee to see every case with great care. But man’s, motto should be ‘Live Well and Leave Well’.

Happiness is a state of mind..attitude towards life.. it is the inner strength which has to be cultivated.. ethics can not be taught it has to be cultivated , sharpened and exercised.. so become an agriculturist and cultivate ethics and we shall find inner strength and will be happy.. my truth is mine may not be others

APNA SATYA AAP PAHCHANO SATYA BADALTA RAHTA HAI AMRIT WISH (POISON) MEIN WISH AMRIT MEIN NITYA BADALTA RAHTA HAI................

Manasvini M Yogi

CAN SPITTING HAVE REMEDIES AND SOLUTIONS?


The state government of Delhi should wake up from its long slumber and do something for the city. Enough is enough. We are preparing to host the commonwealth games next October 2010 and the city is not even clean. I live in Civil Lines in Indraprastha College and go for a morning walk to kudasia Garden near Kashmere Gate. Walking on the long stretch of pavement from IP to kudasia Garden, I have observed the whole pavement littred with paan spits all over, early morning it is not a very happy sight , rather it sends a very bad sensation all over.This sight has forced me to think that what should be done?





These are the real pictures taken by me on the road from IP College to Kudasia Garden ..My morning walk assignment
I feel like sending a piece of my mind to Mrs. Sheila Dixit that she should do something about it. I am not suggesting that people should stop eating paan or stop chewing what they like to chew , i have no right to do so, as i believe that every individual ha a freedom to eat , drink and chew , what ever they want, but as a responsible citizen of our society I have the right to live in a clean atmosphere and breathe fresh air. Also I understand and want every one to think that along with rights comes the onus of performing ones duties also.But some of us in the society do only talk and exercise our rights and forget our duties. The new Metro came to our city , it was a revolution for Delhi commuters to get such facility , and imagine in one day it was open to the public it was painted red with Kattha..the red in the Paan..it was a sad sight.

Why cant we leave the walls of the monuments, new buildings,cinema halls, roads and the train compartments free of spits and also free of writing names that 'so and so loves so', making hearts and arrows , it will be better if the so called lovers use some other base to write all this---- like paper, boards and on what ever is write able and present to there loved ones..wont that be a better idea friends then writing on walls. I am mentioning this point in my write up about spitting as i feel the two are somehow interconnectedie spoiling public places.

To remind the citizens of Delhi, who do not leave any stone unturned to ruin the cleanliness of the city some measures and remedies should be taken up by the MCD and other civic bodies in the city.

One remedy which comes to my mind is that there should be open wooden boxes painted green and filled with sand should be placed all over the city where they can be placed with captions in Hindi and English saying 'Sirf yahan thukna mana nahi hai' or ' please spit here only'.also the city can implement some fines for spitting,like there is in Singapore. Recently in September w.e.f from 26 September a fine of Rs 1000 has been implemented in Pune for any one found spitting.

But my concern is that why we all need compulsions, fines , force to do our duties? Why cant we realize it ourselves? But as we are, I think to have a clean environment we should put restrictions and let force be implemented.

MANASVINI M YOGI

phisalan
सब पूछ रहे हैं मुझ से की मैने अपने ब्लॉग का नाम फिसलन क्यूँ रखा है
सो मुझे लगा की साररी ज़िंदगी इंसान फिसलता और संभलता ही तो रहता है
कभी फिसलते केले के छिलके पर , तो कभी कीचड़ मैं,
कभी फिसलते भावनाओं में, तो कभी आकांक्षाओं में,
कभी फिसलते किसी की बातो से ,तो कभी मुलाक़ातो में,
कभी फिसलते अपने मूल्यों से, तो कभी अपने वादों से,
कभी फिसलते हैं गम में,तो कभी अपनी खुशियों में,
कभी फिसलते हैं पी कर,तो कभी बिना ही पिए,
कभी फिसलते हैं अपने शब्दों में, तो कभी अपने भावोंमें,
तो फिसलते हैं और संभालते हैं, ज़िंदगी भर युहीन ही,
सो रखा मैने अपने ब्लॉग का
नाम फिसलन ही..... . .

Pratiksha

sara jeevan insaan ka beet jata hai pratiksha mein,
bachpan mein bade hone ki pratiksha ,
kabhi kisi vastu ko pane ki pratiksha ,
kabhi sapne poore hone ki pratiksha,
kabhi sab vo paa jane ki pratiksha jo chahata hai insaan,
bas pratiksha hi pratiksha,
raat ko subha hone ki , subaha ko shaam hone ki shaam ko phir raat hone ki,
aur is pratiksha ke chakra mein ghumta insaan beeta deta hai sara jeevan,
jab jeevan vyatit hota jata hai pratishayein kya kam hoti hain...
shayaad nahi...
ankhon ki palko par , bas rahti hai sirf aur sirf EK PRATIKSHA,
par agar kisi din ho gayi pratikshain samapta . to kya jeevan jiya ja sakega
shayad nahi..
karte raho pratiksha ..shaayad kabhi samapta ho jai yeh hamari pratiksha...

Manasvini M Yogi

Chehra

ek chehra ubharta hai
bar bar, ghar ki diwar ke piche se,pedh ki tahniyonke piche se
dayen se kabhi bayein se
kabhi shayad hatta hi nahi
ankon se , smritipatal se
kya hai wo chehra? kiska hai?
is se kya farak padta hai
chehra avyakta sa, chehra shanta sa.na jane kya kahne ki koshish mein
samajh nahi pati
kuch agrah karta, kabhi kuch sthapit karta
par kya? samajh pati nahi
kya hua meri samajh ko, kho gayi kahin
us samajh ko dhoond rahi hun usi chehre mein


Manasvini M Yogi

Soach

sabdon mein bandh dete hain jab apni soach ko hum,
to kya kam ho jati hai us soach ki ahmiyat?
kya kisi kisi soach ko sabdon mein na bandhana hi sahi hai?
par prashna yeh uthta hai
sabdon mein bandhe bina kya ho sakti hai abhivyakti?
shaayad nahi..
maine abhi kya kiya?
soach ko apni bandh diya sabdon mein...

Manasvini M Yogi