Vincent Lambert, Dignity in Dying and the European Court: A Critical Evaluation and the Global Reflections.

In this article I analyse the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of Lambert and Others v. France, delivered on 5 June 2015, affirming the Conseil d'État's decision holding that the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from Vincent Lambert, a French national lying in tetraplegia and persistent vegetative state, was consistent with French domestic law and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In order to make a comparative evaluation I give an account of judicial decisions across the world and find that the European Court's decision is an affirmative pronouncement, in the prevailing milieu of judicial heterogeneity, as it recognizes a person's right to die with dignity in the face of conflicting claims and arguments, by giving supremacy to a person's autonomy and right of self-determination over the deep-rooted religious beliefs and undue paternalistic postures. I conclude that right to die with dignity is a profound area where judge-made law is not the answer. The situation calls for greater consensus and uniformity by evolving suitable legislative strategies.

Aruna Shanbaug and the right to die with dignity: the battle continues.

Aruna Shanbaug's protracted continuance in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for nearly 42 years needs to be viewed seriously by all those who believe in a person's inalienable right to dignity in dying. A terminally ill and/or incapacitated individual is a helpless person confronted with perpetual risk of intrusion in to his autonomy by the moral paternalists, owing to false notion of human virtues. Legislative inadequacy coupled with judicial heterogeneity has exposed the decision making process to unwarranted ambiguity. Misapplication of moral and juristic principles is a global challenge. 29-year-old Brittany Maynard's recent act of ending her life by migrating from California to Oregon has ignited a fierce debate and nearly half of the states in the USA are contemplating enactment of death with dignity legislation. Across the Atlantic, the European Court of Human Rights judgment on June 5, 2015, endorsing Vincent Lambert's right to end medical support, is a resounding affirmation of an individual's right to die with dignity. This article is an attempt to explore various dimensions of one's right to dignity in dying, in the global as well as the Indian context.

Biomedical research and mining of the poor: the need for their exclusion.

Almost all ethical guidelines and legislative policies concerning biomedical research involving human subjects contain provisions about relevance of research for the participating populations, informed consent, adequate care for research induced injuries and several other safeguards but the poor continue to suffer. Globalization has further aggravated poor people's vulnerability by exposing them to international markets. Since the developing countries are abode of higher population of the poor they have become the unholy mines of this human ore for researchers. In this paper I examine various dimensions of poverty and analyze the international ethical responses in the area of biomedical research involving human subjects in order to determine their adequacy to protect the poor against exploitation and misuse and conclude that in view of the poor's inherent and extreme vulnerability and the failure of ethical pronouncements to protect them from misuse and exploitation, they should be excluded from being enrolled as research subjects.

Human organs, scarcities, and sale: morality revisited.

Despite stringent and fine tuned laws most jurisdictions are not able to curb organ trafficking. Nor are they able to provide organs to the needy. There are reports of the kidnapping and murder of children and adults to "harvest" their organs. Millions of people are suffering, not because the organs are not available but because "morality" does not allow them to have access to the organs. Arguments against organ sale are grounded in two broad considerations: (1) sale is contrary to human dignity, and (2) sale violates equity. Both these objections are examined in this article and it is concluded that they reflect a state of moral paternalism rather than pragmatism. It is argued that a live human body constitutes a vital source of supply of organs and tissues and that the possibilities of its optimum utilisation should be explored. Commercialisation should be curbed not by depriving a needy person of his genuine requirements but by making the enforcement agencies efficient.

Emerging health order, values and the law: conflicts and resolution.

The realm of contemporary healthcare is pluralistic and complex. It is a blend of scientific promise, moral values, socio-economic constraints, cultural sensitivities, religious beliefs, political imperatives and commercial interests. Institutionalization of health care, with growing governmental control and the desire towards resource optimization, has widened the rift between individual and community perspectives. The quest for longer life-span, the urge to have 'perfect' babies, the curiosity to know our past and future, and many more expectations, have added new dimensions to human health and healthcare. In several areas ethical concepts are not clear and, at times, right and wrong contemplate redefinition posing serious challenge to the cultivators of law. The issue of biotechnological achievements and their social assimilation contemplates a much deeper dialogue than what is being done in contemporary ethical discussions. This paper is an attempt to identify and integrate the multiple roots of healthcare ethics in order to evolve holistic paradigms in the world of prevailing conceptual ambiguity.

Organ donation consanguinity or universality.

1. Neither the "Diseased Persons" nor the "Genetic Relations" provide an answer to "trading" in human body parts. 2. Live human body constitutes a vital source of supply of organs and tissues and the possibilities of optimum utilisation should be explored. 3. There is no scope for dogmatic postures and open-mindedness should be the approach while dealing with the issue of Organ Transplantation. 4. Society owes a duty to save the file of a dying man and in the event of failure to do so, it is absolutely immoral to interfere with his own arrangements by making unrealistic laws. No immorality is involved if an individual disposes of his spare body parts for a valid consideration to a needy person. 5. The scarcity needs to be urgently overcome otherwise unwarranted trade and crime are liable to thrive. 6. Families are not unconnected or antagonistic fragments of humanity. After thousands of years of continuous efforts the individuals on this earth have attained the stage of organic and functional integration. Atomisation of society on the basis of consanguineous proximities amounts to reversing this holistic trend. Organ transplantation is a functional expression of a highly evolved pursuit with inherent and intimate interaction in the form of organic exchange at the individual level, independent of consanguineous inducements or motivations. As such there is absolutely no scope for restricting organ donations by strangers. 7. Commercialisation should be curbed by making the enforcement agencies more efficient and not by depriving a needy person of his genuine requirements. Legislative craftsmanship lies in providing an answer without curtailing the freedom of the people.