Debate on 'section 309' and right to die

 There is an article in The Hindu (17th December, 2014) about the section 309. The author has highlighted the need of this section and criticized the action of decriminalization of suicide attempt. Since the 'comments' has a word limit, the detailed reply is posted here:

With due respect to the scholarly view of the esteemed author, there seems to be a few points that call for more deeper understanding to this sensitive issue:

1. Let’s look at the statistics and its inference. Every four minute, a life is lost because of the suicide. This is perhaps more than what is lost through diseases, natural calamity, and conflicts. Such a high mortality rate may not be interpreted easily by simply associating it with ‘better literacy, social welfare and healthcare in southern estates’.

‘Disappointment as a result of unmet expectations of achievement’ may be one of the many drivers but ‘new technologies like mobile phone’ and ‘social media’ are probably erroneously linked with such data. A typical example is farmers’ suicide, which were in the headlines some time back. Actually, if we closely look at the individual in the suicide data, we can easily find poor and rich, techie and illiterate, farmer and scientist, Hindu and Muslim, and all sorts of people from every walk of life. It should be noted that the Life’s desperate moment is not the monopoly of any particular group of people. In fact, through mobile phone and social media, help can be more easily provided to the suicidal person. Technology, per se, can never be categorized as good or bad – its impact depends on how we use it.

2. Section 309 was very much intact in 2013, and it could not save a single life out of the ‘disclosed’ suicide data. How effective it was to bring justice for real culprits is also a debatable issue.

3. ‘Dowry deaths’ are mostly disguised murders, which are different than suicide. The harassment due to dowry may lead to the depression in some cases, but the victim can file the complaint against the perpetrators [husband and in-laws]. The law has provisions for this and if required, can be made more stringent. But, to associate it with suicide is again a false linkage.

4. 18 States and 4 Union Territories are in favour of deletion of section 309, supported duly by Tenth law commission. So, it’s a well thought, discussed and democratic decision, and not just any particular scholar’s so-called expert view.   

5. ‘Right to die’ is equally significant for suicide as well as euthanasia, as far as the basic right of an individual is concerned. Third party involvement is mere simplification of the seriousness of the suicide. It should be noted that the suicidal person also needs proper support, which is not available easily in most cases. This is in a way similar to the person on a deathbed, with faint hope of recovery. That the medical advancement may revive the person, willing to opt for euthanasia, is a similar argument that holds for a suicidal person also.

6. It’s not about being conservative or liberal. Let’s look at the example of the ‘sole bread-winner of a family committing suicide’. First, section 309 would not deter him to take such action. He would try the ‘crime’ depending on his mental condition, the stress level, choked emotions, circumstances, and so on & so forth, especially when life would appear to be more difficult than dying. If he succeeds then nobody can punish him. If he does not then under section 309 [or some similar law if it gets made as per the author] then he would be put behind the bars. The family would still be sufferer. One should also understand that suicide is not a willing choice for such a person. He always cries for help, though most of the time his signals are wrongly interpreted by ignorant family or friends. So, instead of retaining 309 or making another law, we should focus on how to reach out to that suicidal person so that he would be able to come out of his trauma and take care of his family. It should be a proper healthcare and emotional support issue rather than a legal matter.

 ‘Attuning our law to the global wavelength’ does not mean ignoring our ‘social and economic condition’. Deleting section 309 is only a little measure, which may not only help the suicidal person but also those who are trying to prevent it in systematic and scientific manner. As far as looking towards the west is concerned, they have more integrated support systems in sync with the law to address the increasing rate of suicide. And this loss of life due to suicide in every 4 minute is our reality, with this rate being next only to ‘China’, another eastern civilization – not a developed country of the west.

                

Unless we understand the psychological aspects of suicide, and sensitize our law accordingly, the support and challenge for suicide prevention will remain a dream. The professionals, trying to help the suicidal, know about such delicate issue. Unfortunately our society at large is ignorant about the suicidal behavior and its coping mechanisms. It’s good that ‘Section 309’ has made it a headline, and may lead to more fruitful actions, the biggest of them is perhaps the ‘mindset change’.