The month of March 2017, is possibly a landmark month in Indian history. The election results of five states were declared and the ruling party recorded a stunning success. Barring the lone state of Punjab it has come to power in four states. While these results have given the party a boost, the responsibility to deliver on its promises has also increased. The Goods and Services Tax (GST), promising to be a game changer has cleared virtually all hurdles and will come into force from 1st July 2017, some months before the September 2017 deadline. Finally, possibly for the first time since independence the Finance Bill for the ensuing financial year has been passed in the preceding financial year itself.
Amidst all the excitement, two events have not received as much public attention from the public as they deserve. These are passing of the Mental Health Care Act, 2016 which in terms of a specific provision decriminalises an attempt to commit suicide. The second is the Supreme Court declining to permit a mother to terminate the pregnancy although the foetus had a severe abnormality. The woman had completed 27 weeks of pregnancy. The current Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act does not permit termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks. Seemingly unconnected events, but both relate to right to live which should include a right to die!
For long, activists have been pleading that, when a person attempts to take his own life, it is an extreme step. Such a person could either be mentally ill or under such severe stress that he/she does not feel it worthwhile to live. After having suffered the trauma of having taken such a step, to prosecute the person under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was really inhuman to both the person concerned as well as his/her close relatives. Section 115 of the Mental Health Care Act presumes a state of severe mental stress in case of a person who makes an attempt to commit suicide, and prohibits any action under section 309 of the IPC. It is true that there would be unscrupulous elements who may try to take unwarranted advantage of such a provision. However, not to legislate due to the possible misuse by a few was incorrect and the government has taken a positive step. One hopes that apart from this welcome provision, the other sections of the Act are also put to good use so that mentally ill persons get medical attention that they deserve and are treated with dignity by the society.
As far as the second event is concerned, there needs to be a debate in public fora. Given the medical infrastructure that our country has, it is extremely difficult to detect a severe abnormality of a foetus, in the early stages of pregnancy. That being the case, if such an abnormality is detected late, there should be some remedy available to the unfortunate parents. I am deeply conscious of a large number of ethical, moral issues involved and there is really no definite answer to a number of questions that may arise. One can only imagine the predicament of the doctor if such a child with a severe abnormality is born alive. There should be a healthy public debate in regard to these situations and the condition of such a child, and the emotional trauma of the parents must receive due consideration.
Finally, there is the issue of euthanasia. Every day we witness, a number of persons who are terminally ill and the chances of their medical condition improving are virtually nil. In such a situation whether they should have the right to decline medical treatment is a very contentious issue. In this case as well there will be a number of ethical and moral issues involved. I am reminded of the case of the nurse – Aruna – who was sexually assaulted and thereafter lay comatose for nearly four decades. While one salutes the dedication of those nurses and doctors who took care of her for this entire period, one wonders what decision the patient would have taken if she had been in the mental state to take one. Today, the concept of a living will is gaining ground where a person while in possession of his mental faculties puts down in writing his decision should a medical condition of his being terminally ill arise.
There is no point in putting the onus on the judiciary in the situations contemplated above. Courts have to deal with the law as legislated. It is true that in situations like the medical condition of an unborn child, or a terminally ill patient one must tread with extreme care. When one is dealing with life, and yes death of a person the decision is irreversible. Therefore, there must be a continuous public debate on these aspects and one must move forward for reaching a consensus on an acceptable legislation. That much we owe to those who suffer in silence!
