Director: Jayaprakash Radhakrishnan
I grew up frequently hearing that Mr So-and-so died a 'good death'. I was often curious about what was defined as a 'good death'. In my naive eyes, all deaths were terrible, a tragedy. Everyone cried at a funeral.
In time, I realised that a good death is one in which one dies in his sleep peacefully after leading a long, satisfying life fulfilling the purposes of his existence. The problem is that no one is given the choice of death he eventually gets. We still do not know what is in store for us anyway.
This movie tells us the story of a filial son who would go to all lengths to care for his father, who is basically in a vegetative state. The doctors have told him point blank that there is nothing more the hospital can do. The father has to be given hospice care. Because the father needs so much attention, he does a less-paying job, provoking the ire of his young wife, who has to work as a miserable factory worker in a match factory. Because of that, she has to tolerate unwanted advancements by her blue-bearded supervisor. She has to stinge on niceties that she used to pamper herself. The wife is high-strung, scolding the preteen daughter and hate the sight of her husband and father-in-law. Gone were the times when husband and wife shared intimate times. The husband, who planned to seek better employment in the town, can also not do so. The thought of leaving his father, who cared for him through thick and thin, was too much for him to stomach.
Looking at how the ailing old man affected the whole family, his relatives and village elders frequently advise the son to consider performing a form of assisted suicide practice called Thalaikkotal to end their misery.
Of course, the husband vehemently opposes the suggestion. He performs a sacrificial prayer at the local temple, hoping for the Divine powers to change the course of his ailment. The father's condition hardly changed. Creditors close in to demand his house. His wife left him to return to her father's house with their child. The husband thought he could stand alone against the world. He soon came to the realisation of reality and agreed with the villagers to perform thallaikooliyal.
The ritual, a senicide, involves liberal early morning oiling of the head and body with sesame oil, followed by forced feeding of tender coconut water infused with a cocktail of herbs that damage the kidneys.
Life improves after the father's demise, and everyone is happy.
That is the problem with longevity. Sometimes the body stays in a much better shape than that of the mind. The body continues its bodily function, but the mind is not cognizant of what it can do or is doing. This describes someone in a coma. Just how long can or should be kept in a non-responsive comatose state? As long as finances allow or the relatives are willing to sponsor? Is it worth the effort to wait for the possible miraculous recovery to happen? The living needs to continue living, while the ones who have lived a full life need to go.
Sometimes the body fails terribly, but the mind faculty stays intact. This can also be a devastating experience for the sufferers as well as their caregivers as the victim projects his frustrations on people around him, fate and God.
Should euthanasia be legalised? Are humans qualified enough to decide who should live or die? Should assisted suicide be legalised? Who decides who deserves to live or be resuscitated by all means? On what basis is this decided, productivity, past laurels, societal status, or a level playing field for all?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Reminds me of the series Mary Kills People. I’ve only watched few random episodes tho’ but moved me each time. No doubt there’s relieved calmness upon seeing a person’s life ends but I do wonder of the painful regret of assisting it. There’s this ‘could there be some slightest hope of recovery”?
ReplyDeleteit is hope that the human thread clings on!
DeleteI saw this movie and was enlightened with the decision taken. Not sure though, whose interests it served.
ReplyDeletehere are no right or wrong decision, only the one that serve the current circumstance. Irrespective of what purists may preach! Every situation is different, in my humble view.
DeleteIt is a tough choice. The very existence of human survival is hope. The faculty that differentiates human and lesser being is the capacity of the mind and the ability to act corresponding to the state of mind. The mind allows sentients to think beyond survival. That becomes a problem now as compared to society of the past. The sociopsychological construct of the world today seem to operate on "disposabale" theme ie. "use and dispose". Even the economy is moving towards a construct call "gig economy". So in this consumerist world the gap between demand and supply is very tight, hence there seem to be less room for faineants. Hence any entity that causes encumbrance in maintaining a state of immediate equilbrium between demand and supply would not be very well tolerated. So is life, when the productive value of life diminishes so would the socioeconomic value of that life. The questions that you put forward at the end of your article, best surmises a conclusion, more a question than an answer. What is life then, but to die anyway. Cheers
ReplyDeleteSivaji’s monologue in Devar Magan comes to mind. You sow the seed, water the plant, fertilise, protect when you are around for the generation next to reap the benefits. And you take the bow. The decision is difficult when others have to do it for you! Avalanche of emotic guilt, piety and legal implications have to be considered. Cheers
DeleteA good death means you die peacefully without giving anyone trouble. Yes, a good death means you go to sleep and don't wake up. In Tamil it'll be 'nalla saveh'. Most people I know want to go off peacefully.
ReplyDelete