ABSTRACT
When a person takes their own life, it is termed as “suicide,” but when some other person takes a life at the deceased’s request, it is termed as “euthanasia” or “mercy killing.”
The Right to die has gained relevance in recent years and has been a hot issue of discussion in society. The decision to continue or discontinue medical treatment or life support for a person who is terminally ill at the end of their lives or who is in a paralyzed or persistent vegetative state due to a tragic accident is known as the right to die with dignity or the right to end life on one’s own terms. In India, active euthanasia is not recognized as it ought to be. The Supreme Court of India declared right to die with dignity and passive euthanasia as basic rights.
The present paper tries to examine Constiutional validity of Right to die as well as present laws relating to Right to die in India. It evolution as well as legality of Right to die with dignity in different countries.
KEYWORDS : Right to die, Constitutional validity, Euthanasia, Suicide, Right to die with dignity, Mercey killing.
INTRODUCTION
The most significant gift from Mother Nature is life. Everyone understands the value of life, and nothing has been found yet that can be used as a replacement for it. The right to die often refers to the ability to take one’s own life. Euthanasia and suicide are two methods for achieving this. Suicide attempts are punishable under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Although it is generally accepted that someone who tries suicide would likely have some mental health issues, it is questionable why someone would still be penalised for doing so. The second way to method is via euthanasia. Speaking about euthanasia, which is a part of the right to die, the term “euthanasia” comes from the Greek words “eu” for good or well and “thanatos” for demise[1]. When a patient experiences unbearable agony, a doctor may provide a lethal injection to hasten the patient’s death. This practise is known as euthanasia. In many medical situations, a patient’s life hangs in the balance between the possibility that it will end and the possibility that it will pass away at any moment. This is a circumstance in which a patient has an untreatable illness or unbearable agony that has rendered his life worse than death and in which there is no longer any prospect for survival. In such cases, the patient often decides that it would be preferable to pass away than to endure the terrible circumstances they are in.It contains four sections: the voluntary, the involuntary, the active, and the passive.
The right to die has long been a sensitive topic in the international community. Since ancient times, the subject of several faiths has been a heated one in India. Since euthanasia has been legalised in the Netherlands and England recently, the argument has gained in importance. Which led to a great deal of global disagreement on whether or not to adopt the Dutch model. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution stipulates that no person “shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law.” [2]The word “right to life” has been interpreted in different ways throughout time by different Indian judges via various instances that have been brought before them. It now has sever rights outside of its core. This encompasses the right to lead a moral life, the right to food, the right to an appropriate standard of living, the right to a clean environment, the right to a roof over one’s head, and a number of other rights for an individual’s advancement. Now, the question of whether the right to a dignified death also comes within its periphery has to be addressed. There are many different perspectives on this issue, including those that are legal, political, moral, and medical. However, the State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal case is when this problem was originally raised.[3], where it was decided that the right to die falls beyond the purview of the right to life. However, this ruling was overturned in subsequent judgements. The Supreme Court has previously made a judgement on this issue and authorised passive euthanasia in India in the Aruna Shanbaug case.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research paper analyzes the constitutional validity of the right to die with dignity or euthanasia in India, its development,and the legality of the right to die in other nations, based on secondary sources. For the study, secondary sources of information such as newspapers, journals, and websites etc are used.
CONSTITUTIONAL VALDITY OF RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA
The Indian Constitution, like the constitutions of all other nations, is not just any ordinary law; it is a law with a special legal sanction that establishes the parameters and basic fundamental principles of the state’s organs and declares the citizens’ guaranteed fundamental rights, which are enforceable in court and embody the principle of human dignity. The discussions around euthanasia are fundamentally founded and place a strong focus on human dignity, as well as the right to a good death. The right to life and personal liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.[4]
However, The right to die is not a part of the right to life, but the right to die with dignity is. A person with an incurable illness cannot be cured; as a result, he or she will ultimately pass away. This patient experiences agony and is kept alive by external care just for survival’s sake. eliminating euthanasia with this situation, securing this person’s right to pass away with dignity would safeguard that person’s article 21 basic right.
EVOLUTION OF RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY IN INDIA
Indian judiciary evolved after the independence from British rule. The Indian Constitution has always given the court a significant role in protecting fundamental rights which is clearly essential to avoid arbitrary control. The Indian judiciary has grown among the most powerful in the world. With the aid of judicial activism and judicial review, Indian courts created the country’s modern legal system.
In India, a person’s life is of the utmost significance. The Indian Constitution’s Article 21, which addresses the right to life, has been interpreted by judges of various courts several times in various circumstances. This is an inherent right granted to all citizens of the country, and it cannot be taken away. As mentioned earlier in the paper that right to die does not come under Article 21. However, the issue was first raised in Maharashta v. M.S. Duvall. In this case, the complainant suffered multiple brain injuries from the accident and became mentally unstable. Later he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He had previously attempted suicide and was also charged with attempted suicide under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)[5]. The Bombay High Court subsequently ruled that a right has both positive and negative elements when it was presented before it. The Court cited Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which said that the right to life includes the “right not to live a forced life.” The Court, after citing many instances where a person The Court eventually concluded that the right to die was not unconstitutional but rather unusual and anomalous In the P Rathinan case, the Supreme Court of India took a similar stance, ruling that the right to life also encompasses the right to die and invalidating Section 309 of the IPC.[6]
However this decision was overruled in case Gian Kaur v State of Punjab [7]In this case, the defendant and her husband assisted in the abetment of suicide of their Daughter-in-Law and it was held that the article 21 of indian constitution does not apply to right to die. Despite the fact that the right to life is a natural right, it has been argued that the right to die is an unnatural component of existence and cannot be covered by natural rights. Again, Justice Lodha in the Naresh Marotrao case [8]saw mercy killing or euthanasia as murder regardless of the circumstances surrounding it. However, a distinction was made between euthanasia and suicide in this instance, with suicide being defined as the act of self-harming committed without the aid of any other human agency, while euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is the act of ending a person’s life with the assistance of another human agency. In the observation of the aforementioned few cases, the Indian judiciary adopted a variety of strategies in cases involving the right to die, thus providing evidence of how the Constitution of India was interpreted according to the specific facts of each case. However, it remained unclear from the statute if euthanasia was legitimately recognized by the Indian Constitution.
After the ruling in the case of Aruna Shanbug, a nurse employed at the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Parel, Mumbai, who was strangled and solemnized by Sohanlal Walmiki on November 27, 1973, the issue became very contentious in India. [9]She fell into a vegetative coma after that. The Supreme Court denied a request for passive euthanasia of the victim made by social activist Pinki Virani on the grounds that the medical support personnel was against it. However, by legalizing passive euthanasia, the court was given numerous parameters, such as the need that any decision about passive euthanasia be made in the victim’s best interest and be authorized by the relevant High Court. Additionally, passive euthanasia is now permitted in India as of March 2018. The Court also permitted “living wills,” but only under certain conditions. For example, the person making the will must be of sound mind and able to understand the consequences of doing so; they must also not be under any duress; such wills must be made in writing; at least two witnesses must be present when the person signs the will; and the will must also be countersigned by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class.
The 2016 Bill for the Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients[10]
In the interest of the general public, a Common Cause organization filed a Writ Petition to The Honourable Supreme Court of India in 2005 asking for the recognition of advanced directives for medical care that patients would like to receive in the event that they fall into a persistent vegetative state, long-term unconsciousness, or coma. A draft of “The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) bill” was delivered to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in May 2016 after a five-judge panel declined to issue an order and instead instructed the Indian government to bring it up for discussion in Parliament. The aforementioned bill was simply a copy of a draft of the law that was first included in The Law Commission of India’s 196th report in 2006 and then altered in 2012.[11]
RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION
ADVANTAGES:
- The right to life is seen as a fundamental human right and is essential to personal freedom and self-determination. The right to a dignified death has been acknowledged as a basic right by the Indian Supreme Court, despite the fact that the Indian Constitution does not expressly mention this right.
- The acknowledgement of the right to die in the Constitution is essential because it acknowledges that individuals have the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies and lives, even at the end of their lives. Additionally, it assures that society and the government are under duty to uphold and defend these rights.
- In addition, the constitution’s provision on the right to die is crucial in addressing the problem of end-of-life care. In the event of a terminal illness or permanent unconsciousness, the ability to choose one’s medical treatment with dignity allows people to lessen suffering and guarantee that medical resources are used in the most moral and compassionate manner possible.
- The right to die with dignity may aid in the battle against discrimination and societal stereotypes against persons who have impairments and terminal illnesses, in addition to ensuring that they are treated with dignity and respect.
- Incorporating Right to die with dignity in the Constitution of India is crucial for upholding people’s autonomy and self-determination, defending their rights, and ensuring that they get ethical and compassionate end-of-life care.
DISADVANTAGES
- Ethics: Critics contend that assisted suicide and euthanasia are immoral and that putting the right to die in the Constitution will invite misuse and exploitation of the weak.
- Possibility of misuse of power: Some contend that the right to die may be abused by medical professionals, loved ones, or others to terminate people’s lives against their will or without their permission.
- Impacts on society: Some opponents contend that legalizing euthanasia might have detrimental effects on society, including the devaluation of the lives of the old, the handicapped, and the terminally ill, as well as the development of a culture of death rather than a culture of life.
- Alternatives: According to critics, palliative care is one such option to euthanasia that may relieve pain without terminating a person’s life.
- Legal framework: Some contend that more comprehensive regulations are required to guarantee that the right to die is used in an ethical and compassionate way and that the existing legal framework for euthanasia in India is insufficient to safeguard people from abuse and exploitation.
- Religion and culture: The legalization of euthanasia is opposed by several religious and cultural organizations in India because they believe it violates their religious principles and Indian cultural norms. The Indian Constitution’s inclusion of the right to die has drawn acclaim for upholding the autonomy and self-determination of people, but it has also drawn criticism for the ethical, sociological, and legal ramifications of euthanasia legalization.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In the article “ THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS” by Laxman Singh Rawat and Rafat Munir Ali they discusses about right to die in india the article begins with historical background how In the past, people who were terminally sick were supposed to die naturally since it was seen as morally and ethically appropriate and provides a comprehensive understanding of the concepts of euthanasia and the right to die , the different kinds of euthanasia and it’s evolution in india Finally, the paper discusses the current situation, the responsibility of doctors in cases of euthanasia, and how The Indian court did an excellent job of extending the reach of Article 21 of the Indian constitution by giving it the widest meaning possible to include all facets of life. Unfortunately, the court has not gathered the courage to interpret Article 21 to include the right to a dignified death. [12]
Caesar Roy writes in his paper “POSITION OF EUTHANASIA IN INDIA-AN ANALYTICAL STUDY” that the right to suicide has been common in India from the time of Lord Ram. It discusses the definition of euthanasia and its many forms. The essay starts out by describing the historical context of euthanasia in several faiths. The discussion then turns to euthanasia’s legal status in India and other nations. The Aruna case and its many dimensions are briefly discussed in the article. Finally, the paper discusses the current situation and the responsibility of physicians in euthanasia cases.
LEGALITY OF RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGINITY IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Euthanasia and the right to dignified death are highly debated topic with opposing viewpoints across the world. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are permitted in some situations and are subject to strict legislative restrictions in various nations, including the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada. Only those who have made a voluntary and well-informed request for euthanasia and are experiencing unbearable pain due to a terminal disease or an incurable condition are eligible for it in these nations.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are governed by a patchwork of laws and regulations in other nations, including the United States, with some states permitting the practice and others criminalizing it.
While assisted suicide and euthanasia are still prohibited in several nations, like the United Kingdom, the law does not punish anyone who helps someone commit suicide under specific conditions.[13] In several other nations, like India, passive euthanasia is permitted but active euthanasia is still prohibited. While euthanasia proponents contend that it is a kind and humane solution for those who are enduring unbearable pain and have no other options, opponents contend that it is ethically wrong and that society should instead concentrate on improving care and assistance for the terminally sick and suffering
SUGGESTIONS
In my view Over the last ten years, right to die with dignity or euthanasia has become an extremely delicate topic. Despite the fact that this issue has been the subject of many discussions as a result of recent events, the idea of euthanasia remains unclear. hen the topic of euthanasia is discussed, a variety of viewpoints that use religion, morality, and the law as its foundations are raised, which makes mercy killing a significant social and legal problem.
In the modern world, and particularly in India, euthanasia laws need to be well-structured. The rules and regulations must be carefully crafted while taking into account the nation’s many religious, cultural, philosophical, and physical facets.
Euthanasia, both passive and active, should be legalized, but only in extremely specific situations after thorough research has been done. In certain cases, family members and medical professionals who are money-hungry would take advantage of patients’ lives. We need to maintain a strict hold on the situation in order to avoid this. The government must also take into account those in the middle and lower classes who cannot afford the high-quality medical care provided by private institutions. The simple legalization of passive euthanasia in India won’t have any impact unless and until all of the country’s residents have access to medical care equally.
CONCLUSION
Thus, it may be said that India is moving toward making euthanasia completely constitutionally lawful. And if we consider the current situation, we can conclude that health problems are likely to worsen with passage of time as a result number of problems , including climate change, water, air pollution, food adulteration, etc. In addition, the number of people who are terminally ill will rise regardless of how far medical facilities have advanced. Making euthanasia legal will become more necessary under such circumstances, and it already is. However, there is a difficulty with how such a legal process would be put into practice since, as India’s history has shown, laws are usually wonderful on paper but turn out to be different when they are put into practice. We all know that it is against the law to kill female infants in India, yet newspaper articles have shown a different reality; an even better example would be rape and acid assaults. Similar to this, several academics have already identified a number of adverse consequences that may arise if euthanasia is legalized in India. In certain situations, a single statute that makes euthanasia lawful under specific circumstances may not be sufficient, and it may even be harmful to confer total constitutional legality. As a result, the issue will be determined in light of the various facts of the cases that are presented before the Court. Laws, however, may set out certain requirements that patients must meet before requesting passive euthanasia. But before setting such guidelines, in-depth research must be conducted with the assistance of academics and doctors to attest to the validity of such parameters.
Name: Anamika Parasher
College Name: Jagran Lakecity University.
[1] Robert Young, Voluntary Euthanasia, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Jun 10, 2023, 11:35 PM) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/.
[2] Roy, Dr.C. (2021) Position of euthanasia in India – an analytical study, Academia.edu.(Jun 10,2023, 12:00 Am) https://www.academia.edu/51789241/Position_of_Euthanasia_in_India_an_Analytical_Study?email_work_card=title.
[3] Maruti Shripathi Dubal v State of Maharashtra BomCR (1986)BOMLR 589.
[4] INDIA CONST. art.21.
[5] Indian Penal Code 1860, s 309.
[6] P. Rathinam v Union of India (1994) AIR SCC (3) 394.
[7]Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) AIR 946 SCC (2) 881.
[8] Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v Union of India (1996) BomCr 92.
[9] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v Union of India (2015) WP(Civil) No 215 of 2015.
[10] The Law Commission of India, 196th Report on Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) 2006.
[11] The Law Commission of India, “Passive Euthanasia – A relook” Report No. 241 (2012).
[12] The concept of right to die in India: A critical analysis – IJCRT. Available at: https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT1812261.pdf (Accessed: 11 June 2023).
[13] Team, L. (2023) Right to die under indian constitution, lawyersclubindia. Available at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/right-to-die-under-indian-constitution-15508.asp (Accessed: 13 June 2023).
Pingback: ANALYZING THE CONSTIUTIONALITY OF RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY UNDER INDIAN CONSTITUTION – Startup Story