Dayaprerit Hatya Itar Ane Jain Tattvadrushti

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Dayaprerit Hatya Itar ane Jain Tattvadrushti," in English:

This book, "Dayaprerit Hatya Itar ane Jain Tattvadrushti" (Euthanasia - Others and Jain Perspective), authored by Ramanlal C. Shah, delves into the complex and age-old debate surrounding euthanasia, also known as mercy killing or compassion-driven killing. The author contrasts various societal and philosophical viewpoints with the stringent principles of Jainism.

The text begins by highlighting that problems associated with death far outweigh those of birth, as the cycle of birth and death is constant. Death, while natural, can also occur prematurely due to accidents, murder, epidemics, wars, or natural disasters. Euthanasia, or the act of intentionally ending a life to relieve suffering, is explored as a voluntary act, often performed when life becomes unbearable due to old age, illness, disability, or disfigurement.

The term "euthanasia" is derived from Greek, meaning a "gentle and easy death." Historically, philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates in ancient Greece discussed this issue. Seneca famously stated that one chooses their death just as they choose a ship or a house. The debate surrounding euthanasia is acknowledged as delicate, balancing emotions and feelings with intellect and logic, leading to ongoing discussions and differing opinions among doctors, judges, rulers, social workers, economists, psychologists, and religious leaders. The author notes that euthanasia is legally considered a crime in most countries, with few exceptions.

The text discusses the evolution of terminology from "euthanasia" to "mercy killing" and the objections to the latter due to the conflicting meanings of "mercy" and "killing." Suggestions like "mercy ending" are mentioned but not widely adopted. In Gujarati, "Dayaprerit Hatya" (compassion-driven killing) is used, but the word "Hatya" (killing) is considered harsh.

The book then explores the arguments for the right to die with dignity, questioning its validity in the context of euthanasia. While acknowledging a person's ownership over their life, the focus shifts to the ethical implications of one person ending another's life out of compassion.

The author categorizes different scenarios of euthanasia:

1. Voluntary Euthanasia: When a terminally ill person suffering unbearable pain requests the termination of their life with full consent.
2. Euthanasia based on Incapacity: When a person is intellectually impaired, has suffered brain damage, has lost the ability to think or decide, is unable to communicate, or has no apparent physical utility and is causing suffering to others. In such cases, a decision might be made by family and doctors in the person's best interest.
3. Non-voluntary Euthanasia: When the life of a person suffering severe physical and mental agony is ended by family and doctors without their knowledge or consent. This is considered a grave offense, akin to murder.

The text acknowledges that materialistic individuals, religious leaders, sociologists, scientists, and physicians will approach euthanasia from their distinct perspectives. The increasing population, advancements in science, changing social conditions, economic pressures, rising healthcare costs, and the shift towards smaller families all contribute to the complex nature of this debate.

The author then contrasts the views of religions that believe in reincarnation and karma (like Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism) with those that do not (like Judaism, Christianity, Islam). Materialistic perspectives are also highlighted as being different. Western, affluent, materialistic, and self-centered societies are seen as having a greater prevalence of euthanasia, particularly where government-funded healthcare incurs significant costs for prolonging lives with little utility. The text mentions instances of clandestine euthanasia and cases where doctors have been caught and punished for hastening deaths, sometimes by increasing the dosage of painkillers.

The distinction between ending the life of a young person versus an elderly person is also considered. The author points out that a young person's wish for death during intense suffering might change if their pain subsides or they recover, leading to a re-evaluation of their life's purpose. The text also addresses situations where a patient's desire for death might be fleeting or inconsistent, making it difficult to assess the sincerity of their wish. It's noted that if a person truly desires death, they could choose to stop eating and drinking voluntarily, which is not legally problematic.

The book discusses how individuals who express a desire for death during suffering may react differently when death is imminent, with some becoming fearful while others maintain composure. The author also recounts instances where medical prognoses proved incorrect, with seemingly doomed patients recovering and living for many years.

The financial burden of prolonged medical treatment on families is examined, with some families experiencing severe debt and a sense of resentment towards the dying patient, even if they do not express it openly due to societal pressure. The potential for abuse of euthanasia laws is also discussed, including the motive of inheritance and disputes among heirs. The author refers to accounts of doctors in Western countries who have admitted to hastening deaths and concealing it.

The text also touches upon cases of brain damage leading to a vegetative state, where patients might remain in a coma for years. The famous case of Nancy in the US, where parents sought court permission to end their daughter's life after seven years of care, is cited as an example of the emotional and practical strain involved.

The book then introduces the concept of extending life through medical interventions, such as intravenous feeding, and the ethical obligations of doctors. The author poses the question of whether doctors should provide such support when it only prolongs suffering without any tangible benefit. Medical ethics generally dictate that doctors should strive to preserve life, and withholding such support might be considered a breach of duty or even a legal offense in some places.

The author emphasizes the value of life itself, even in a comatose state, and the emotional significance it holds for loved ones. The act of deliberately ending a life, or taking away consciousness, is viewed as a grave harm, leading to potential societal desensitization and a loss of compassion.

The text contrasts the desire of loved ones to prolong the life of a respected leader or public figure with the potential desire for a swift end for an elderly, ailing, and seemingly unproductive individual. This highlights the inherent value placed on a living person.

The economic burden of the elderly on society is discussed, with some suggesting that the elderly should voluntarily end their lives or be assisted in doing so to avoid being a financial strain. However, the author questions whether those who have contributed to wealth have the right to enjoy their accumulated assets in their old age. The desire for inheritance by younger generations can also create pressure for the elderly to pass away sooner.

The author challenges the notion of "usefulness" in defining the value of an elderly person, arguing that even those who are not actively engaged in societal or family tasks can provide emotional support, guidance, and a sense of security. The difficulty in defining "useful elderly" makes it hard to accept the idea of their self-sacrifice or assisted death for the societal good.

The practice of santhara (Sallekhana) in Jainism is discussed. It is distinguished from suicide as it is a voluntary act performed with spiritual intention, guided by religious authorities, and undertaken with detachment from the body and awareness of the soul's immortality. Those who assist in this process are not considered to be committing euthanasia.

Finally, the core Jain philosophical stance on euthanasia is presented. Jainism, with its belief in reincarnation and karma, defines any intentional act of taking another's life as himsa (violence), which is considered detrimental and sinful. The text states that even thinking that it would be good for a suffering person to die quickly is considered bhava himsa (mental violence).

Jainism emphasizes equanimity and acceptance of what is destined to happen. It teaches that every living being must experience the consequences of their karma. While euthanasia might alleviate present suffering, it cannot prevent the soul from experiencing the repercussions of unexpiated karma in future lives, potentially in a more severe form. Therefore, euthanasia is seen as ultimately detrimental to the soul, even if it offers temporary relief in this life. The author concludes that the Jain perspective strictly rejects euthanasia, as well as any intentional act of separating the soul from the body, even in the case of subtle beings or plants. The Jain ideal is to desire happiness and not to desire death when facing suffering, advocating for a holistic spiritual perspective.