Submit your Article

Euthanasia, commonly known as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life to relieve suffering, often for terminally ill patients who are enduring unbearable pain. It raises debates worldwide on the right to die with dignity versus the sanctity of life. 

Euthanasia is generally divided into two main categories: Active Euthanasia, which involves actively taking steps to end someone’s life, such as administering a lethal dose of medication, and Passive Euthanasia, which allows someone to die by withdrawing life-sustaining treatments like ventilators or feeding tubes. It can further be classified as Voluntary, where the patient gives explicit consent; Non-voluntary, when the patient is unable to give consent (e.g., unconscious); and Involuntary, where euthanasia is carried out against the patient’s wishes. 

Several countries have made significant strides in legalizing euthanasia, such as The Netherlands, the first country to legalize euthanasia in 2002 under the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act. In this framework, euthanasia is legal if the patient is suffering unbearably without hope of improvement, makes a voluntary and well-considered request, consults a second physician, and follows medical standards. Belgium also legalized euthanasia in 2002, allowing both adults and, under strict conditions, minors to request euthanasia if they suffer from unbearable pain or terminal illness. 

Canada introduced Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) legislation in 2016, permitting euthanasia for patients who have a grievous and irremediable condition that causes intolerable suffering. The legal framework for euthanasia and the right to die has roots in the broader conversation of human rights. The right to life is a core principle under various international human rights frameworks, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). While these documents emphasize the sanctity of life, some argue that the right to life also includes the right to die with dignity when living becomes unbearably painful, though neither document explicitly mentions euthanasia, leaving room for interpretation by national laws. 

In the context of Nepal, euthanasia is not currently legal. The National Penal Code, 2074 explicitly prohibits euthanasia in any form, classifying intentionally causing someone’s death, including assisted suicide, as murder under Section 184. Passive euthanasia, as well, has no legal standing in Nepal, despite Article 16 of the Constitution of Nepal 2072 guaranteeing the right to life with dignity. However, the article does not clarify whether this includes the right to die with dignity. 

Nepal has yet to engage in a national debate on whether euthanasia should be legalized, and challenges arise from its religious, cultural, and social structures, which view life as sacred and inviolable. A close model for Nepal to consider is India, where euthanasia was illegal until the landmark Aruna Shanbaug case in 2011. 

Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse in Mumbai, was in a vegetative state for over 40 years after being assaulted, and the Supreme Court of India ruled that passive euthanasia could be allowed under certain conditions with court approval. Furthermore, in 2018, the Supreme Court of India allowed living wills or advance directives, permitting people to express their wishes not to be kept alive through artificial means if they become terminally ill or enter a vegetative state. 

Nepal could potentially follow this legal path, permitting passive euthanasia under strict judicial oversight to ensure that the process is not misused and that the patient’s wishes are respected. Euthanasia in Nepal would also need to be examined through the lens of Hinduism, a major religious tradition in the country. Hinduism regards life as sacred but also recognizes the impermanence of the body, viewing death as a transition rather than an end. The practice of Prayopavesa voluntary fasting to death is mentioned in Hindu texts as an accepted practice for those nearing the end of life, suffering from incurable diseases, and who have lost all desire to live. 

Unlike suicide, Prayopavesa is a peaceful and non-violent way of embracing death, typically practiced by saints and monks. However, most interpretations of Hinduism emphasize the principle of Ahimsa, or non-violence, which extends to euthanasia. 

The Manusmriti condemns suicide and any form of unnatural death, as it is believed to interfere with the soul’s journey to the afterlife. Yet, some scholars argue that passive euthanasia, allowing nature to take its course, could align with Hindu principles, particularly when the suffering of the individual is immense. International court verdicts provide insight into the complexities of euthanasia legislation. In the case of Pretty v United Kingdom (2002), Diane Pretty, a woman suffering from a terminal illness, sought the right to euthanasia, claiming that Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights included the right to die with dignity. 

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the right to life did not imply the right to die, rejecting her appeal. This case highlights the challenge of balancing individual autonomy with societal norms. Similarly, in Washington v Glucksberg (1997), the United States Supreme Court upheld Washington State’s ban on physician-assisted suicide, ruling that while individuals have rights to autonomy, the state has a legitimate interest in preserving life. However, states like Oregon have since legalized euthanasia under the Death with Dignity Act. 

Nepal would face several challenges in legalizing euthanasia, including its deeply rooted religious and cultural beliefs, as both Hinduism and Buddhism, the major religions in Nepal, regard life as sacred. These traditions view any attempt to end life prematurely as a violation of divine law, with concepts such as Ahimsa and non-violence making euthanasia a sensitive topic in religious discourse. 

Moreover, Nepal’s healthcare system lacks adequate palliative care services, which could ease the suffering of terminally ill patients, raising concerns among euthanasia advocates who argue that euthanasia might be necessary in extreme cases until proper end-of-life care is available. Legal safeguards would also need to be robust, as without proper oversight, there could be risks of abuse, with vulnerable populations like the elderly or disabled potentially facing pressure to opt for euthanasia for the benefit of others. 

Therefore, strict guidelines like those in India or the Netherlands would be crucial. In contemplating the practice of euthanasia, Nepal might first consider the legalization of passive euthanasia under stringent regulations, akin to India’s approach. Allowing passive euthanasia with judicial oversight could offer a balanced approach, preserving the sanctity of life while respecting an individual’s autonomy over their suffering. A key component of implementing euthanasia laws in Nepal would be establishing a clear ethical and legal framework, ensuring oversight by both medical professionals and the judiciary. This would prevent misuse and ensure that terminally ill patients can die with dignity when recovery is no longer possible. 

In conclusion, euthanasia is a complex issue that involves moral, legal, and cultural considerations. While some countries have legalized euthanasia under strict conditions, Nepal continues to prohibit it. However, as demand for compassionate end-of-life care grows, Nepal could consider legal reforms that allow for passive euthanasia, particularly for patients facing unbearable suffering with no hope of recovery. By adopting a careful and culturally sensitive approach, Nepal could begin to address the delicate balance between the right to life and the right to die with dignity.

Nepal’s mental health crisis is a ticking time bomb, and the government is doing nothing to defuse it. While politicians line their pockets, thousands of Nepalis are dying from preventable suffering. This is not just gross negligence—it’s a national disgrace.

A reality check

The severity of Nepal’s mental health crisis is heavily undermined. The statistics alone should spark an outrage: nearly 10 percent of Nepalis are living with mental health disorders, ranging from depression and anxiety to bipolar disorder and schizophrenia (Nepal Health Council in 2021).

The tragic reflection of our society is mirrored by adolescents, a demographic with the highest vulnerability to death by suicide. From 2022 to 2023, on average, 19 people died from suicide every day in our country, and countless others have continued to silently endure debilitating mental health challenges without access to care or support. 

According to reports by the World Health Organization (WHO), Nepal has one of the highest rates of psychological distress and disorder in the demographic of South Asia.

Adding insult to injury, the government allocates less than one percent of its health budget to mental health services. This abysmally low investment paints a clear picture of where mental health ranks in the country’s list of priorities: at the bottom.

The compounding factor lies in the country's education system and healthcare system, where there is no awareness regarding mental health crises and the country lacks the infrastructure and human resources to deal with these psychological disorders.

Systemic failure

Nepal’s healthcare system is laughable to be brutally honest. Mental health services remain concentrated in a handful of urban centers, leaving rural populations entirely neglected. For many Nepalis, accessing care is not just difficult—it’s impossible.

The situation is further worsened by a lack of professionals in the given area. As per reports by WHO (2021), for every 100,000 Nepalis, there were only 0.17 psychiatrists, 0.03 psychologists and 0.21 mental health nurses. Moreover, a concerning number of the available professionals that we do have are arguably not qualified to diagnose or treat patients. There is a glaring lack of a formal licensing board that standardizes counseling and therapy practice and regulates practitioner behavior. This absence of professionals and professionalism leaves individuals to struggle in silence until it is often too late.

Even in urban areas, the services available are prohibitively expensive for most Nepalis. Mental healthcare is treated as a luxury reserved for the wealthy, rather than a fundamental right for all citizens. The government’s promise to integrate mental health into primary healthcare remains nothing more than hollow words. Most primary healthcare centers don’t even have the resources or training to handle basic mental health cases.

Physiological and psychological health are treated with different intensities and attitudes in Nepal. While it is easy to almost unconditionally nurture and care for someone with a broken arm, it’s often much harder to even acknowledge when someone is struggling on the inside.

Societal stigma

Societal stigma plays a vital role in the current situation of Nepal’s mental health crisis. Mental illness is often perceived as a personal failure or a fatal flaw in character, a punishment for bad karma, possession by spirits, or even bluffing to dodge responsibilities. Such regressive beliefs isolate those who are already vulnerable, forcing them to suffer in silence.

Families hide mental health issues out of fear of ostracization. Communities badmouth “crazy” individuals, dismissing their struggles and calling them names instead of being empathetic, let alone offering help. This stigma creates a suffocating environment where people would rather endure silently than seek support, fearing that a diagnosis will label them as a “psycho”  for life.  The wider society has already consolidated the complex and diverse spectrum of psychological disorders into psychosis—most representations of mental illnesses in media are often portrayed through debilitating conditions such as schizophrenia and other delusional disorders, where affected people are always hallucinating, acting aggressively, catatonic, harming themselves or others or not maintaining personal hygiene. However, books like the DSM-5 and ICD-11, which have been continually revised by leading experts, suggest that there are multiple mental health disorders that each have their own onset, severity, prevalence, and prognosis which can greatly vary according to the set categories.

The lack of open conversation about mental health perpetuates this toxic culture. Schools avoid teaching students about emotional well-being, and the media rarely portrays these issues with the sensitivity they deserve. Instead of being a society that supports and uplifts, Nepal has become one that shames and silences its own people.

Governmental apathy

The government’s efforts toward the mental health crisis are outright shameful and borders on recklessness. The National Mental Health Policy, created in 1996, is tragically outdated and barely implemented. It exists more as a formality than as a functional framework to address the crisis.

The promises to integrate mental health into primary healthcare by politicians remain unfulfilled. Hospitals and clinics lack the resources, trained staff, and infrastructure needed to support even the most basic mental health services. 

This apathy directly costs lives. Suicide rates are climbing, untreated mental illnesses are becoming more severe, and the stigma around mental health continues to grow unchecked. Yet policy makers remain silent, hiding behind empty rhetoric while their citizens suffer.

The message is clear: the government has chosen to abandon its people in their time of greatest need. This neglect is not just a policy failure—it is a betrayal of the fundamental duty to protect and care for the nation’s citizens.

What shall we do?

Boost the budget’s allocation

It is impossible to address mental health without a substantial financial commitment. Mental health services must get a significant amount of the government's health budget. Building infrastructure, employing experts, and providing treatment subsidies to those who cannot afford them.

Increase the infrastructure for mental health

To guarantee accessibility across the country, all district hospitals should have mental health units. They should educate primary care providers on how to identify and handle common mental health conditions. There must be a provision of at least mobile mental health clinics for isolated and rural locations.

Start campaigns for public awareness

There must be bureaucratic and civil interest in running and participating in national campaigns to raise awareness about mental health issues via social media, television, and radio. We should make an effort to de-stigmatize mental illness, promote candid discussions, and spread the word that getting assistance is both necessary and normal.

As much as we would like to point fingers and shift the blame onto a particular body or individual, it is obvious that we are just as much at fault when it comes to society’s unwillingness to change. Our compliance and comfort in the fact that the system continues to alienate and vilify people who clearly need support has led to a divide that threatens to unravel our moral fabric. Unless we persistently challenge our crude ideologies and those in power who seek to reinforce them, we will never truly be able to progress as a collective or achieve equity.

Ujain Shrestha

A-levels 

Islington College, Kathmandu

This year marked a moment of pride for SAIM College as 44 Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) students earned their place on the prestigious Dean's List, a testament to their dedication and hard work. Among these high-achieving students, four distinguished themselves further by securing a perfect CGPA of 4.0/4.0—an extraordinary accomplishment that reflects their academic brilliance and perseverance.

The top achievers—Aryan Kumar Verma, Samjhana Dura, Bipashna Sodari, and Chhesang Lama—have set a new standard of excellence, embodying the spirit of discipline and grit that defines student life at SAIM.

Speaking on the milestone, Principal Ashok Raj Pandey shared his heartfelt congratulations: "This remarkable achievement reflects not just the hard work of our students but also the dedication of our faculty and the support of families. At SAIM, we are committed to fostering an environment where students can realize their full potential. To all our students, congratulations on this well-deserved success. You are the future leaders and changemakers, and your journey has just begun."

The journey to this success has been shaped by a supportive learning environment and a student-centric approach to education. SAIM College emphasizes collaboration, critical thinking, and innovation, ensuring every student has the opportunity to excel.

For the 44 students who made the Dean’s List, this recognition celebrates their perseverance and hard work. For the four students who achieved perfection, it is a hallmark of their outstanding determination and drive.

This achievement reaffirms SAIM College’s commitment to nurturing future leaders, fostering growth, and celebrating the stories of transformation behind every success.

I cry , it doesn’t mean I am weak,

I smile ,it doesn’t mean I am happy.

I panic , it doesn’t mean I am scared,

My feelings change in moments unprepared.

Though I cry, it doesn’t mean I’ve lost,

My tears fall from battles I’ve fought.

My smiles may hide the storms within,

But they show the strength I keep deep in.

Even when I quit, I seem the strongest,

Even with fears, I look the boldest.

For the world sees only what is outside,

Not the struggles I quietly keep inside.

If I pretend, the world thinks I’m strong,

While silence hides where I go wrong.

But when I show myself and speak my heart,

I may stand alone, but that’s my art.

Let them judge, let them misunderstand,

I’ll live as me, and take my stand.

No crowd can measure what I am worth,

For being true is the rarest on earth.

Supriya Paudel

BBM III Semester

United College, Kumaripati, Lalitpur