June 13, 2012

The reality of suicide is far different from the fantasy. Most suicidal thinkers romanticize their death by suicide, failing to realise that any suicide gesture or attempt can result in permanent brain, kidney, and liver damages, loss of limbs, blindness, or even death. – Susan Rose Blauner in How I Stayed Alive When My Brain Was Trying To Kill Me.

Two highly played up local reports in Mumbai media in April provoke this article on an otherwise topic of abiding interest - but swept under the carpet. One headline screamed: Sex-change case deferred, man threatens suicide. In a letter to the court (Bombay High Court), 21-year-old Bhidan Baruah has said that that if his case isn’t heard immediately, the judges will be responsible for his death. “I am requesting the court to pass an order against my family or grant me an order for authorised suicide”. Bhidan, who likes to call himself Swati, has alleged that his parents had prevented him to the sex reassignment surgery which was scheduled to be performed on April 17. He claimed his parents threatened the doctors who have now refused to perform the operation unless the High Court gives a go ahead. Incidentally, the court has objected to the blackmail implied in the suicide threat. (The High Court has since granted the permission for the operation; but the poor chap has exhausted his funds, earmarked for the operation, fighting the court case and extended stay in Mumbai).

The second case is banner-headlined: Jilted lover jumps off flyover, lands on a car. Failed suicide attempt: Indore resident sustains minor injuries, was remanded to 14 days’ judicial custody. The usual story follows. A dozen more such stories of successful and failed suicides plaster the local news pages of city media. But, now the all-important question about considering suicide attempts as crime has assumed centre-stage again.

Commenting on the subject, Pratibha Masand of Times News Network wrote in The Times of India (TOI) (3-5-12): Even as Ghanshyam Nagar has been remanded to 14 days’ judicial custody for attempting suicide, mental health professionals said society needs to be “a little more compassionate” towards those disturbed enough to seek an end to their lives. Their arrest after a failed suicide attempt will not deter them or others from taking such an extreme step, city psychiatrists told TOI on May 2. Moreover, instead of ensuring that the individual does not repeat the drastic attempt, the arrest may just strengthen his or her resolve to not fail the next time.
 
What the victim needs is counselling, said doctors. Dr Bharat Shah, who consults at Lilavati Hospital, said that such individuals should be treated like patients and not criminals. “Attempted suicide should be treated as a medical condition. One has to always keep in mind how depressed a person must have been to take such a big step. Even if the person is in custody, he should be provided with counselling,” he said.
 
Dr Sanjay Kumawat, of the Bombay Psychiatrists’ Society, added that a person who has failed a suicide attempt must be taken to a hospital not to just diagnose and treat physical injuries, but also mental health. This should be made mandatory. “The police have their own way of handling things, which may further traumatize patients. A mental health professional, on the other hand, understands that each case is different, and needs to be treated differently, so that such an act is not repeated,” he said. 
 
It is interesting to recap what the law says on the subject. Under the Indian Penal Code’s Section 309, attempting suicide is a punishable offence. The provision says: Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with a fine, or with both
 
The government had spoken about deleting the provision in the 1970s, but little came of it. The Bombay High Court, in 1987, had held that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to live as well as the right to end one’s life if one desires, and had struck down Section 309. The Supreme Court upheld the view in 1994. But, in 1996, a five-judge constitutional bench of the apex court ruled otherwise, and held that the fundamental right to life did not include the right to die. It held that Section 309 was constitutionally valid
 
That remains the law of the land today, though the Law Commission, in a 2008 report, had recommended the decriminalization of Section 309. Chew on this!