"ભારતમાં મૂક કૃપામૃત્યુ" ની આવૃત્તિઓ વચ્ચેનો તફાવત

નાનું
ફેરફારોનો કોઇ સારાંશ નથી
નાનું (r2.7.1) (રોબોટ ઉમેરણ: zh:安乐死 (印度))
નાનું
| publisher=LA Times| date=8 March 2011| accessdate=8 March 2011}}</ref> ૭મી માર્ચે ભારતની [[સર્વોચ્ચ અદાલત|સર્વોચ્ચ અદાલતે]], કાયમી ધોરણે મૃતપ્રાય અવસ્થામાં રહેલા દર્દીઓને આપવામાં આવતી કૃત્રિમ જીવન સહાય પાછી ખેંચી લઈને મૂક પણે કૃપામૃત્યુ આપવ અંગેની જોગવાઈને કાયદાનું સ્વરૂપ આપ્યું છે. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving [[Aruna Shanbaug]], who has been in a vegetative state for 37 years at [[KEM Hospital|King Edward Memorial Hospital]]. The high court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection. In the absence of a law regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the [[Indian parliament]] enacts a suitable law.<ref name="Hindu1">{{cite news | url=http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1516644.ece| title=Supreme Court disallows friend's plea for mercy killing of vegetative Aruna | publisher=The Hindu| date=7 March 2011| accessdate=7 March 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/SC-rejects-petition-for-mercy-killing-of-Aruna-Shanbaug/articleshow/7644557.cms| title=Aruna Shanbaug case: SC allows passive euthanasia in path-breaking judgment| publisher=The Times of India| date=7 March 2011| accessdate=7 March 2011}}</ref>
 
==અરુણા શાહબાગ ખટલો==
==Aruna Shanbaug case==
{{Main|Attempted murder of Aruna Shanbaug}}
Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse working at the [[KEM Hospital]] in [[Mumbai]] on 27 November 1973 when she was sexually assaulted by a sweeper. During the attack she was strangled with a chain, and the deprivation of oxygen has left her in a vegetative state ever since. She has been treated at KEM since the incident and is kept alive by feeding tube. On behalf of Aruna, her friend [[Pinki Virani]], a social activist, filed a petition in the Supreme Court arguing that the "continued existence of Aruna is in violation of her right to live in dignity". The Supreme Court made its decision on 7 March 2011.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.indianexpress.com/news/after-36-yrs-of-immobility-a-fresh-hope-of/555048/| title=After 36 yrs of immobility, a fresh hope of death| publisher=Indian Express| date=17 December 2009| accessdate=7 March 2011}}</ref> The court rejected the plea to discontinue Aruna's life support but issued a set of broad guidelines legalising passive euthanasia in India. The Supreme Court's decision to reject the discontinuation of Aruna's life support was based on the fact the hospital staff who treat and take care of her did not support euthanizing her.<Ref name="Hindu1"/>
 
==માર્ગદર્શિકા==
==Guidelines==
While rejecting Pinki Virani's plea for Aruna Shanbaug's euthanasia, the court laid out guidelines for passive euthanasia.<ref name="Hindu1"/> According to these guidelines, passive euthanasia involves the withdrawing of treatment or food that would allow the patient to live.<ref name="LA-times">{{cite web|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-india-euthanasia-20110308,0,1497102.story|title=India's Supreme Court lays out euthanasia guidelines|publisher=LA Times|date=8 March 2011|accessdate=8 March 2011}}</ref><ref name="BBC">{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12662124|title=India court rejects Aruna Shanbaug euthanasia plea|publisher=BBC|date=7 March 2011|accessdate=8 March 2011}}</ref> India joins a small number of countries, including [[Switzerland]], [[Belgium]] and the [[Netherlands]], as well as the US states of [[Washington (state)|Washington]] and [[Oregon]], that have legalised euthanasia in some form.<ref name="LA-times" /><ref name="Times-Widely" /> Elsewhere in the world euthanasia is almost always illegal.<ref name="Times-Widely">{{cite web|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Euthanasia-Widely-debated-rarely-approved/articleshow/7651439.cms|title=Euthanasia: Widely debated, rarely approved|date=8 March 2011|accessdate=8 March 2011|publisher=Times of India}}</ref> As India had no law about euthanasia, the Supreme Court's guidelines are law until Parliament passes legislation.<ref name="LA-times" /> India's [[Ministry of Law and Justice (India)|Minister of Law and Justice]], [[Veerappa Moily]], called for serious political debate over the issue.<ref name="BBC" />
 
After the court ruling the ''[[The Telegraph (Kolkata)|Calcutta Telegraph]]'' consulted with Muslim, Hindu, Jain and Christian religious leaders. Though generally against legalising euthanasia, Christians and the Jains thought passive euthanasia was acceptable under some circumstances. Jains and Hindus have a traditional ritual ''[[santhara ]]'' and ''[[Samadhi#As_leaving_the_body|Samadhi]]'' (also refered to as ''[[Mahasamadhi|mahā-samādhi]]'') respectively, wherein one can perform to end one's life when one feels their life is complete.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110308/jsp/nation/story_13683131.jsp|title=Faiths take nuanced view|publisher=The Telegraph - Calcutta|date=7 March 2011|accessdate=8 March 2011}}</ref> Some members of India's medical establishment were skeptical about euthanasia due to the country's weak rule of law and the large gap between the rich and the poor, which might lead to the exploitation of the elderly by their families.<ref name="LA-times" />
 
==સંદર્ભ==
==References==
{{Reflist|2}}
 
==બાહ્ય કડીઓ==
==External links==
*[http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/archive/00496/mercy_killing_496791a.pdf ભારતમાં કૃપામૃત્યુ પર સર્વોચ્ચ અદાલતનો ચુકાદો]