Abstract
The right to life vs right to die is always a matter of debate. The right to life is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. Article 21 states the right to life and personal liberty but that never ensures the right to die as it paves the way for many crises. The debate goes on why the right to die is not considered personal liberty as it is the choice of the person to decide if or not to continue their personal life. Killing oneself can be acquired through suicide or euthanasia. Euthanasia is usually done in medical conditions where a person itself or his/her family consent to the patient’s death due to an excessive medical condition where the patient suffers unbearable pain and mental torture. On the other hand, suicide is self-killing where a person finds it impossible to move forward with their life but here the reason can vary from person to person. It can be financial issues, mental illness, family issues, unexpected events in life, depression, hopelessness, etc. Suicide is punishable under the law as mentioned in IPC Section 309 however by the introduction of the Mental Health Care Act 2017, Section 115 suicide is decriminalized in support of the mental torture faced by the person. Also, it stated that the person must be supplied with proper care, treatment, and psychological counseling.
The right to die with dignity is held as a fundamental right by five bench Supreme Court in 2018 and in 2023 modifications were made to these guidelines and made the procedure hassle-free. Thus, mercy killing can be performed in severe cases. However, the debate continues as to why the right to die is not considered to be included in Article 21- right to life as it is a personal choice to decide whether to move on or end the life but still, mercy killing is not legalized in India. A proper law that sets clear-cut boundaries regarding euthanasia and suicide and its rights concerning Article 21 is yet to be made.
Keywords: Right to life, right to die, article21, euthanasia and suicide, mercy killing, right to die with dignity
Introduction
The right to life and the right to die are complex concepts that are subject to debate, controversy, and legal action in India. The Indian Constitution recognizes the right to life as a fundamental right which includes the right to live with human dignity, the right to liberty, the right to health care, and the right to medical care.
However, the right to die is not explicitly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. There are cases where individuals opt for euthanasia or mercy killing, but there are no well-defined laws regarding such practice and are always subjected to interpretation. In 2018 Supreme Court of India recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right. Also, at this point, it is to be noted that mercy killing or euthanasia is still illegal in India. As no specific laws regarding mercy killing are yet to be made this always created trouble among individuals and healthcare providers.
Suicide on the other hand is also illegal in India. It is also questionable that if mercy killing is accepted legally in many cases, then why suicide is not? An individual permits mercy killing when he believes that recovery to normal life is impossible and to escape from physical as well as mental pain. The same thought is the reason why a person commits suicide. They are also hopeless and fed up with mental torture.
While we question the reason why the right to die is not legal, the consequences that would arise if it is legalized are also to be noted here. If mercy killing is legalized there may arise circumstances where people utilize this right to intentionally kill a person even if the patient has chances of recovery. Also, there are cases where people recover even after years of coma. Another challenging question that arises here is whether killing a person in whatever circumstances is justifiable. Life is considered the most precious and taking away life is certainly considered inhumane. Now another set of people keeps arguing that not letting a person die in case of severe pain and with no hope in life is cruelty. This debatable issue is to be resolved first, only then a proper law that differentiates the right to life from the right to die and the circumstances for euthanasia to be permitted can be framed.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology used is doctrinal. Supreme court judgments, laws, reports, and other facts which are available online and offline are used for research purposes. Legal and ethical aspects of life and death are the main considerations in this research article.
RIGHT TO LIFE
The right to life is considered the most precious right as far as a human being is concerned. It is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Every act a human does is for the fulfillment of his life. All other laws are made to ensure and uplift the quality of the right to life. No person has the right to question another’s life until it is legally acceptable by the judiciary. Article 21 clearly states that “no person should be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law”.[1]As per this, it is evident that we the people of India are ensured with two basic rights: the right to life and the right to personal liberty. This applies to every citizen even if he/she is a foreigner. This ensures us the right to live peacefully by protecting our health, wealth, and culture.
Moreover, the Indian legal system recognizes the right to life as a natural right and not just a legal right. This means that every individual has the inherent right to life, which cannot be taken away by anyone. However, despite the legal protection afforded to the right to life in India, there have been many instances where these rights are being violated.
EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia comes from two words: ‘eu’ means ‘fair’ and ‘Thanatos’ means ‘death’. This means ‘good death’: death happens in favor of a person and happens for a good reason.[2] Euthanasia is a highly controversial and sensitive topic, with different cultural, religious, and social views influencing individuals’ ethical and moral perspectives on the issue.
There are two types of euthanasia: active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.[3]
ACTIVE EUTHANASIA
The intended deed causes a person’s death concerning their incurable or deadly medical condition. These are performed by medical professionals usually by administering high-dose medicines. All types of active euthanasia are illegal under the law. This causes the sudden death of a person. Here, instead of normal death voluntary death occurs which can be considered ethically incorrect.
PASSIVE EUTHANASIA
A person suffering from a deadly or incurable medical condition is denied proper medical care or medicine. No external harm is done such that it causes death but the facilities which retain their life are being removed which eventually causes the natural death of a person. It is of three types:
- The patient gives self-consent
- The patient doesn’t give consent
- The patient is not in a state to give consent
Passive euthanasia is performed based on the physical as well as mental state of the patient. If the recovery of the patient completely is in no way possible and if the patient had to suffer excessive pain and discomfort passive euthanasia is done. This practice is legal in most countries. In India, euthanasia is not legal (both active euthanasia and passive euthanasia) but in many cases depending on the circumstances, passive euthanasia is being allowed.
CHALLENGES OF MERCY KILLING
Even though mercy killing is done with a good intention which is to end the unending extreme sufferings faced by the patient it is noted here that a life is being lost through this act. Therefore, the act of a medical professional here can be considered against medical ethics. The life of a person is always precious whatever circumstances he may be in thus mercy killing can be considered morally wrong. At least some sections of society may intend to utilize the legal aspects of mercy killing and may utilize it for murdering a patient. Critics worry that vulnerable individuals such as the elderly or disabled may be coerced into choosing death rather than receiving proper medical care. Also, we do mercy killing with a presumption that the patient cannot be brought back to normal life from their sufferings but there are many cases where patients recover even from coma. All these challenges pave the way for a second thought about whether mercy killing must be permitted or not.
POSITIVES OF MERCY KILLING
It saves a person from extreme pain. India is a country where we lack sufficient intensive care units and facilities. While we spend a lot of money, time, and facilities for a patient with no hope it is better to spend these facilities and care for a young person who could recover if properly cared for. It also saves the patient from mental torture due to extreme pain. Also, it is better to respect the decision of a person who is suffering a lot with no hope.
While there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue, it remains a highly contentious topic with no easy answers. Ultimately any decision regarding mercy killing must balance compassion with respect for human life and ensure adequate safeguards against abuse.
SUICIDE
Suicide is an act of self-killing. To kill oneself is the deadliest thing a person can do. The number of suicide cases goes on rising every year. The root cause of many suicide cases is not even known to experts. Some of the common causes which usually lead people to suicide are:
- Depression
- Hopelessness
- Lack of something to which a person was addicted. That can be a thing, person, or position
- Mental disorders
- Bipolar disorder
- Excessive fear of something etc.
In August 2022 National Crime Records Bureau released data on suicides in India. It states 164033 crimes reported in 2021 which is a 7.2% increase compared to last year.[4] There was a huge rise in male suicides in 2021. This shows that the main reason for the increase in the suicide rate is the financial crisis due to Covid19 as in most families men are the breadwinners. Among the men who committed suicide majority of them were daily wagers and next came small-scale businessmen. Among women, the majority of them were daily wagers.[5]
IPC SECTION 309 mentions the act of commitment of suicide is punishable under law with a maximum of two years imprisonment or a fine or both.[6] The debate here is about the worthiness of punishing a person who is already under mental torture. A person suffering from excessive mental torture commits suicide such people must be uplifted by society through proper mental and physical care. Sudden punishment after a suicide attempt further worsens the mental condition.
Introduction of Mental Health Care Act 2017 as a remedy for the challenges faced by IPC SECTION 309. Section 115: the presumption of the severe case in an attempt to suicide[7]
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code.
(2) The appropriate Government shall have a duty to provide care, treatment, and rehabilitation to a person, having severe stress and who attempted to commit suicide, to reduce the risk of recurrence of attempt to commit suicide.[8]
Therefore, the current status of Section 309 is that ‘notwithstanding anything contained in Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the said Code’.
MERCY KILLING AND SUICIDE A COMPARISON
As mercy killing is acceptable as per some rulings of the Supreme Court, there is a growing debate over whether suicide or self-killing too to be accepted. While some argue that it is the right of a person to continue or end his/her life and it is their freedom others point out that a person should continue his life by all means available both artificial and natural. As mercy killing is acceptable it is important here to draw a clear-cut boundary between mercy killing and suicide to make people aware of what differentiates one from the other.
Justice Lodha in Naresh Maratra Sakhee vs Union of India differentiated mercy killing and suicide as Mercy killing is actually an act of homicide but unless it is specifically accepted it cannot be an offense. Suicide on the other hand is an act of self-destruction without the aid of any other human agency.[9]
A doctor performs a mercy killing when a patient loses hope in their lives and believes they couldn’t recover from the present state and gives consent for it. If so the same thought and mental state are being experienced by a person committing suicide. Then why does suicide is not acceptable while mercy killing is?
RIGHT TO DIE
It is clear from the above facts that the citizens are given the right to die only in case when the patient is in a critical situation such that recovery is almost nil and is under extreme physical pain and mental torture with the consent of the patient or family with an intension to save the patient from a severe condition. It is questionable here why a person lacks the right to die if he has the right to live and personal liberty. If a person decides not to continue his life concerning the mental state and wishes to die to retain their present social status or to relieve himself from the fear of future difficulties or hopelessness then it must be respected and accepted as a personal liberty. At the same time if the right to die is made legal for all individuals, then it would also cause more suicide cases and people may opt for it even for silly problems. Therefore, to protect life as well as to protect the liberty of a person proper legal solutions must be taken considering all possible challenges.
CONCLUSION
We the citizens of India have the right to life and personal liberty as per Article 21 but that never gives us the right to die. The right to die can be considered as a close fact of the right to life and liberty. In my point of view if a person suffers from excessive pain and lives with the hopelessness of recovery that person can be given the right to die naturally just by taking away the medical facilities so that natural death follows which can be categorized as mercy killing. Suicide cannot be given as a right as it can result in suicide attempts even in silly cases especially from teenagers and youth when they start facing issues from society, family, or friends. Proper care and counseling must be given to people with depression, mental illness, hopelessness, and other issues which may drive them to suicide, and people who recovered from suicide attempts must also be given proper care, medication, and psychological counseling so that the person can be recovered from further attempts. Also, it must be ensured that our society must support these people.
In 2018 five bench judges in the Supreme Court held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right and does not depend on legislation and recognition by the state. In 2019 Indian Society for Critical Care requested to modify the guidelines in the 2018 judgment. They mentioned the right to die for critically ill patients is extremely cumbersome and requires streamlining. In 2023 the Supreme Court modified the guidelines and made the right to die with dignity more accessible and hassle-free.[10] Still, euthanasia or mercy killing is not legal in India. It is always subjected to interpretation. A group of people is against mercy killing and they are of the mind that killing a person in whatever circumstances cannot be justified. Also, they argue that there are cases where a person may recover from a coma even after years. So here we are denying the rights of that individual to recover his/her life. A proper law that clearly states the circumstances in which euthanasia is permitted is yet to be framed. The main issue faced is that most points raised for and against the right to die are valid up to an extent.
The right to die as such cannot be given as it may result in many complications. Thus, a law that clearly defines the situations where euthanasia is permitted and the exceptions applicable is to be made. Also, strict punishments are to be given to individuals who violate the law and utilize it for crimes. The law should be made by considering all the challenging issues which are being questioned in the current scenario.
Hridya S Kumar, National University of Advanced Legal Studies Kochi
[1] Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
[2] Chao DV, Chan NY, Chan WY. Euthanasia revisited. Fam Pract. 2002;19:128–34.
[3] Chao DV, Chan NY, Chan WY. Euthanasia revisited. Fam Pract. 2002;19:128–34.
[4] Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, National Crime Records Bureau. [Last accessed on 2023 Jun 14]. Available from: http://ncrb.gov.in/
[5] Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, National Crime Records Bureau. [Last accessed on 2023 Jun 14]. Available from: http://ncrb.gov.in/
[6] Section 309 of IPC
[7] Ministry of Law and Justice. The Mental Healthcare Act; Gazette of India. 2017. [Last accessed on 2023 June 14]. Available from: https://egazette.gov.in/(S(zttxindcdiqcgcwywd0f5g0c))/default.aspx
[8] Section 115 of the Mental Health Care Act 2017
[9] Justice Lodha vs Union of India, 1996 (1) BomCR 92, 1995 CriLJ 96, 1994 (2) MhLj 1850
[10] Common Cause vs Union of India, WP (C) 215/2005