That is the pitiable state to which we have reached as a nation.
The case of Aruna has thrown up this issue and even supreme court has come out with a disturbing view-
partial/ passive euthanasia is acceptable.
What does that mean ? A person can be allowed to die by not supporting his/ her needs to sustain life.
But you can't inject or do anything which can speed up that death.
What is the difference - except time taken to the eventual death.
In my limited understanding of law and medicine both are equivalent to murder.
Euthanasia may a solution to many developed counties where there is strong checks and balances.
In our country, this is very likely to be misused if not abused by vested interests.
State exists to support and sustain life of its citizens.
But if immediate relatives shun that responsibity then State should come forward.
State may charge the relatives if they can afford it or develop a corpus by a spl tax.
Otherwise at some stage we all can 'RIP '
