In fact, this has been done to some extent, either by formally expanding the categories of persons authorized for euthanasia or by vaguely applying the criteria by personnel involved in the administration of euthanasia. Belgium, for example, abolished the age limit for euthanasia in 2014; Euthanasia has extended beyond the line originally drawn by Dutch law to patients considered legally and mentally incompetent, and the possibility of extending it to those who are not terminally ill but consider their lives complete. severe psychological pain in an otherwise healthy person was considered sufficient grounds for requesting euthanasia; and researchers have found cases of involuntary euthanasia in the form of ending the lives of disabled infants in the Netherlands. The cost of poisons used to die from euthanasia is about $50 per injection, while chemotherapy costs thousands of dollars. Health care commercialization: Passive euthanasia takes place in most county hospitals, where poor patients and their family members refuse or discontinue treatment because they have huge costs to keep it alive. If euthanasia is legalized, the commercial health sector will sentence many disabled and elderly citizens of India to death for meagre sums of money. This was emphasized in the Supreme Court decision.3,17 Medicine and the medical profession have traditionally been aimed at healing and healing. Assisted suicide is neither a cure nor a cure. It plays the medical profession against itself: healing and healing against murder. The word euthanasia, which comes from Greece, means a good death1. Euthanasia has different dimensions, ranging from active (introducing something that causes death) to passive (withholding treatment or supports); voluntary (consent) to involuntary (guardian consent) and physician-assisted (if the physician prescribes the drug and the patient or a third party administers the drug to cause death).2,3 The call for premature end of life has contributed to the debate about the role of these practices in health care today. This debate covers complex and dynamic aspects such as legal, ethical, human rights, health, religious, economic, spiritual, social and cultural aspects of civilized society. Here we discuss this complex issue from the perspective of supporters and opponents, and also try to portray the plight of those affected and their caregivers.

The objective is to examine the issue of euthanasia from a medical and human rights perspective in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision3 in this context. However, as a physician who cares for dying patients, I am more afraid of the burden this issue places on the many people who would otherwise choose to live than of the modest restriction placed on a few when physician-assisted suicide is illegal. It is possible to discuss how we have divided the arguments, and many arguments could fall into more categories than we have used. Passive euthanasia for a patient who is already dead (not literally) is a good choice. It`s better than letting them and others suffer. No, this is not possible If the patient tends to recover over a long period of time or suddenly becomes normal, involuntary euthanasia becomes very dangerous. There may be many reasons why individuals or groups may encourage a patient to request euthanasia: for a government, it may be the desire to reduce health care costs; and, for a family, the desire to get rid of the patient`s sense of guilt or duty to care for it; For heirs, a rush to enjoy the property left by a family member. Access to euthanasia could cause an inner conflict for the patient, torn between fear of pain and the desire to continue living rich moments with his family and loved ones. Thus, in the context of a society open to euthanasia, the patient who has difficulty living with a demanding illness would bear an additional burden. Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On March 7, 2011, India`s Supreme Court legalized passive euthanasia by withdrawing life-sustaining care for patients in a persistent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who was in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for 42 years until her death in 2015.

It doesn`t matter what a person looks like, how productive they are, how others see that person, or how that person came to themselves. What matters is that everyone, black or white, healthy or sick, is someone. Assisted suicide and euthanasia force us to accept that it is morally permissible to act with the specific intent to make someone a person, that is, to kill them. Proponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia postulate the uncontrollable pain scenario as a straw man to advance their cause. These proponents apparently see death as the ultimate painkiller. In today`s medical practice, pain relief is almost always possible in the face of modern analgesia therapies and the medical specialty of pain treatment. Since pain can be relieved, there is no reason to claim to need SBP due to intractable pain. This may partly explain why many applications of the SAP are no longer linked or triggered by excruciating pain, but out of fear of such unbearable pain. Closely related to a patient`s fear of excruciating pain, and sometimes associated with a patient`s fear of being abandoned (Coyle 2004), is a patient`s PAS request because they do not want to overwhelm others. This too is a curious contradiction, because on the one hand there is the desire not to be a burden for a loved one, and on the other hand, there is the fear of being alone and abandoned. Such a contradiction, when considered and coupled with the fact that pain can be successfully treated by optimal palliative medical implementation, increases the strength of this argument against PAS/E. Good palliative care is the alternative to euthanasia.

If it were available to all patients, it would certainly reduce the desire for death to be induced earlier. This argument argues that euthanasia is wrong because of the sanctity of human life. Some fear that the introduction of euthanasia will reduce the availability of palliative care in the community because health systems want to choose the most cost-effective ways to treat dying patients. However, if euthanasia is available, the sick person may be pressured to request euthanasia. Proponents of euthanasia say these are good reasons to ensure that the euthanasia process is not rushed, and agree that a well-designed euthanasia system must take all of these points into account. They say that most of these problems can be identified through proper patient assessment and, if necessary, the system should discriminate against the opinions of particularly vulnerable people. Many people fear that if voluntary euthanasia becomes legal, it would not be long before involuntary euthanasia begins. Against euthanasia and palliative care.

It does not reflect the Dutch reality that palliative care is included in end-of-life care, nor does it reflect the location of the option of euthanasia at the request of a patient in the overall spectrum of end-of-life care. «Data from places where euthanasia has been legalized, such as Oregon, suggests that the fears of these opponents of the law are largely unjustified anyway. The most significant vulnerability of many terminally ill people is excruciating, chronic, non-relieving pain. Because of MPs who voted against the bill, thousands of people in Britain will continue to endure this pain against their will. That these MEPs describe their voices as protecting the weak is grotesque. The family or others caring for the sick person may view them as a burden they do not want to carry and may put pressure (which can be very subtle) on the sick person to request euthanasia. Refusal of treatment: The right to refuse medical treatment is recognized by law, including life-preserving or prolonging medical treatment. For example, a patient with blood cancer may refuse treatment or refuse feeding through the nasogastric tube. The recognition of the right to refuse treatment makes passive euthanasia possible. Many argue that allowing a medical abortion before 16 weeks is also a form of active involuntary euthanasia. This issue of mercy killing of malformed babies has already been discussed in Holland20. If the state assumes responsibility for an adequate level of health care, then the majority of euthanasia advocates will certainly reconsider their reasoning.

We support the Supreme Court`s decision that our society today and our public health system are not mature enough to deal with this sensitive issue, so it needs to be mastered. However, this issue needs to be revisited after a few years, depending on the evolution of society in terms of health care for the disabled and the public health sector in terms of health care for the poor. Proponents of euthanasia would reply that this argument contains a number of completely misleading suggestions and would refute them: if euthanasia becomes legal, it can be regulated by governments. The truth is that euthanasia will always take place, even if it is illegal. At least, if it`s legal, the process can be controlled, including proper safeguards and controls to make sure it`s really what the person wants.