Premises

We live in an era where every aspect of life is punctuated by technology. While this influence spans from how we live, speak and now potentially think, it transcends further to how long we live in this world. This, of course, is highly inequitous based on to what extent one can access the technological gadgets that promise to prolong life to almost eternity. There is little doubt that the numerical value of expectancy of human life in larger part of this universe is now much more stretched out than anytime before. There is, however, an existing and evolving mismatch between quantity and quality of life that ensues, in terms of the essence as well as content of life. The technical deluge has brought many new questions in this context to the surface.

Has this “new world” progress been sufficiently sensitive and consistently careful in respecting as well as safeguarding the sanctity and values that the concerned individual nurtured all through life for himself ? It should not be violating the right to live a life of “my own". At the same time , it should carefully avoid infringement into aesthetics and dignity of the process of unavoidable exit from this world – what we label as death. The arrangements in the system should be robust enough to guard untimely , salvageable loss of life. In the same breath , it should be balanced not to stretch life like a thread decorated with beads of machineries that show up in a display similar in appearance to an inanimate collective for a while. Such existence lacks all the ability to express emotions as well as ability of cognition and only delays eventual objective death through technological might. Living and dying are natural events, both of which has its’ own beauty, rhythm and purpose. A decent and self respecting society should have checks and guards for making both of these spectral aspects of life soothing and bearable. The issues that we face during our living and surviving in adversities are discussed almost daily in different forums. In contrast, we tend to close our eyes on issues and ways that make our transit out from this world in a feat of fear and denial. This denies the right to die with dignity. This is where the idea of Dyulok Pari becomes relevant.

The context is too revealing before our eyes. These days we keep on hearing stories of people who, after an illness, accident or age-related health decline, enter into a physical state of virtual subordination to machines and medications. These modern amenities for extension of survival come at a cost. The financial burden is mostly out of pocket in India, it inflicts social and economic trauma on individual as well as family that often becomes critically impoverishing and proves to be soring yet unavoidably accepting in the prevailing cultural context and peer structure. This too frequently ends up gifting a life that gasps of its’ fragrance rather than a vibrant one, at least one that can take care of him/herself. The eyes of the individual keeps on blinking and flutters in an overarching lure of material existence that we are fostering today with all that we have. Too frequently, it is like a haze that never clears with certainty trapping hopes and lust for living longer like an octopus.

However, the Supreme Court of India has recently created certain windows for action and cultivation of approach with an objective of resolving this medical – emotional – legal conundrum. Unfortunately, the discourses in this area are yet to take shape in this country. People are yet to be aware of these aspects of legal provisions so that they can make considered decisions and plan accordingly. Much more clarity will emerge in this area in the coming days but that would happen once we start the thought, exchange of ideas and advocacy in relevant forums keeping existing legal provisions as the guiding light. Dyulok Pari is willing to assume this civic obligation.

---