1.1 PROLOGUE:
“I 'm not afraid of being dead. I 'm just afraid of what you might have to go through to get there.” -Pamela Bone
Death is one certain thing that has to come to every one whether one wants or not. It does not listen to anyone and it comes when it has to come. Death is certainly painful for everyone. Even a thought of it may engulf a person with fear but think once what will happen if one day all of a sudden you come to know that you are going to die soon because of some deadly disease which has no cure. The mental agony goes to its zenith and later on the physical pain that one has to suffer waiting for death which is heading nearer is just inexpressible in words. Only that person knows the pain who actually
…show more content…
Therefore it implies that the person is not in a position to decide for himself e.g., if he is in coma or PVS. The real problem arises here because it is in these circumstances only that the possibilities of misuse of euthanasia are the greatest as any person being a relative or a next friend of such person may misuse it for his own selfish ends and therefore to avoid such misuses it is necessary to see as to who can take the decision on behalf of such person for his best interests. The hon’ble Supreme Court in Aruna Shanbaug’s case has observed that it is the High Court( acting as State) in exercise of its Parens Patriae jurisdiction which shall decide the best interests of such incompetent person and thereupon decide whether he should be allowed to go for passive euthanasia or not. It is really appreciable observation of the Hon’ble Court which minimizes the possibilities of misuse of Euthanasia. However the researcher wants to go further into the issue to examine whether a tribunal specifically dealing with such cases would be a much better option or the High Court would be the only proper authority to decide the best interests of such incompetent