The newspaper and the media is full of discussions on the Supreme Court confirming Ajmal Kasab's death sentence, mostly revolving around whether death sentence should be abolished or not.

While I dont really have an opinion on the same, however all these discussions got be thinking about euthanasia.

Irrespective of the crime, death sentence, against the foundation of human rights, is the State taking the life of another person. So, if under certain circumstances, the State is allowed the take the life of another, is a person, again, under certain specified circumstances, not allowed to take his life?

A person is sentenced to death only in the 'rarest of the rare cases'. A number of SC cases define the term 'rarest of rare', and thus, using the same as precedence, a person is sentenced. The position that euthanasia somehow on the wrong end of the moral compass when death sentence is justified, seems to be entirely misplaced to me!