ABSTRACT:
The controversial topic of euthanasia in India has spurred discussions about ethics, morality, and legality. Euthanasia, which has its roots in the desire to put an end to extreme suffering in a dignified manner, is a complicated topic with many different variations and legal implications. This essay investigates the moral and legal aspects of euthanasia in India, looking at its constitutionality, historical context, and present legal standing. Based on primary and secondary data, such as academic articles, court rulings, and religious texts, the study uses a descriptive/ex post facto methodology. It examines the literature on various forms of euthanasia, constitutional interpretations, and legislative measures, highlighting the perspectives of diverse stakeholders such as medical professionals, legal experts, and religious communities.
KEYWORDS:
Euthanasia, mercy killing, suicide, Right to Die with dignity, passive euthanasia, Terminally III patients.
INTRODUCTION:
“Life is Pleasant, Death is painful and said transaction is troublesome”.
– Matthew Arnold.
Everyone wishes to be alive and relish the blessings of life until the day they pass away. However, sometimes an individual wants to take their own life by using unorthodox tactics. It is abnormal to terminate one’s life in a peculiar manner. When an individual takes their own life, own deed, we refer to it as “suicide,” but when someone ends their own life at another individual’s request, it is known as “euthanasia” as well as “mercy killing.”
As per the prevailing opinion, the term “euthanasia” originated in Greece and signified “a good death.” Its root meaning is obtained from the Greek word “euthanatos,” which translates to “well death.” The term was initially used to refer to deliberate mercy killing. In the contemporary context, euthanasia is defined as a medical professional ending a patient’s life at the patient’s request in order to relieve them of a terrible sickness or grief.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition), euthanasia is, “Euthanasia means the act or practice of killing or bringing about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or condition especially a painful one, for reason of mercy”
There are a lot of medical situations where patients’ lives are in uncertainty, with death hovering at any moment. This is a state in which a patient has no hope left for survival and is suffering from an incurable illness or excruciating agony that makes his life unbearably painful and worse than death. In these kinds of circumstances, the patient frequently decides that dying is preferable to continuing to live in those awful circumstances.However, he is not permitted to commit suicide because it is regarded as a criminal offence and is penalised by law. The international community has always considered the right to die to be a delicate subject. In India, the topic of several faiths has generated controversy since ancient times. The debate has grown in significance since euthanasia was recently made legal in the Netherlands and England. It caused a great lot of controversy about whether the Dutch model should be adopted globally. Nobody “shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law,”in accordance with Indian Constitution Article 21. Throughout history, Indian judges have construed the term “right to life” differently based on the diverse cases that have been presented before them. Its rights outside of its centre are now severe. This includes the freedom to live a moral life, the right to eat, the right to a healthy environment, the right to an appropriate quality of living, and several other rights related to human growth. It is now necessary to examine the question of whether the right to a dignified death falls within its bounds. Diverse viewpoints exist about this matter, encompassing legal, political, moral, and medical aspects.
where it was decided that the right to life does not include the right to die. However, subsequent decisions overturned this judgment. The Apex Court made a ruling in the Aruna Shanbaug case, approving passive euthanasia in India.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The current study report “THE DIGNITY OF CHOICE: EUTHANASIA AND RIGHT TO DIE LAWS IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT” is predicated on secondary data gathered from different sources. As far as secondary materials go, they were gathered from a variety of books, newspapers, journals, and research papers. The descriptive/ex post facto research approach was employed in the current study to examine data gathered from various sources.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
VARIOUS KINDS OF EUTHANASIA
As was previously mentioned, euthanasia involves helping a person who has a serious illness and is unable to recover his health. Euthanasia can happen with or without consent, depending on the conditions that allow a doctor to choose whether to withdraw a patient’s life support equipment. As a result, euthanasia falls into the following general categories:
Voluntary Euthanasia:
The term “voluntary euthanasia” describes situations in which the patient expresses his desire to end his life, either actively or passively. Therefore, in order to use this type of euthanasia, the patient or his legal representatives must make the request.
Involuntary Euthanasia:
Euthanasia that occurs without the patient’s express consent is known as involuntary euthanasia. It describes situations in which a competent patient’s life is taken against their desires if they are against euthanasia; and would blatantly qualify as murder.
Active Euthanasia:
It is the practice of mercifully ending the lives of terminally sick individuals without causing them any pain, such as when a physician gives a patient a lethal dosage of medication. Like a person needs assistance from someone else to take a medication that can induce death since they are unable to trigger their own death. The Indian Penal Code’s section 302 or, at the absolute least, section 304 prohibit euthanasia as a crime. The Indian Penal Code’s Section 306 makes physician assisted suicide (abetment to suicide) illegal.
Passive Euthanasia:
Withholding common medications, such as antibacterial agents, that are essential for life maintenance is required for passive euthanasia. It entails doing nothing to stop death from happening, like when Physicians abstain from utilizing equipment required to maintain the vital signs of a patient who is either in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) or has a terminal illness.Passive euthanasia is thought to be less brutal than active euthanasia. In India, the only permissible method of euthanasia administration is passive euthanasia. Physicians performing “passive euthanasia” are merely failing to rescue the patient; they’re not hurting him for any intentionally.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Since euthanasia has existed for as long as human civilization, it cannot be considered a contemporary phenomena. Furthermore, in ancient Greece and Rome, it was acceptable to assist someone in taking their own life under specific conditions. For instance, infants with serious birth abnormalities were executed at the Greek city of Sparta. In many ancient communities, it was customary for elders to end their lives voluntarily.
Religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all value human life and forbid euthanasia in any form, but when we contrast this with western law, we find that most Western laws view aiding someone in dying as a kind of homicide that carries specific legal penalties.Six Euthanasia was mostly known as a method of passing away quickly and painlessly by ingesting hemlock, and it was seen as a good death in Greece.Thus, it is evident that the traditional understanding of euthanasia under Western law is more closely related to suicide.
The Bible, the Koran, and the Rig Veda are just a few of the ancient texts that discuss suicide and self-destruction. There are countless instances of religiously motivated suicide in India’s Vedic era history. There are numerous accounts of religious suicide in both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.The majority of Hindus believe that a physician should refuse a patient’s request for euthanasia since doing so will result in the spirit and body separating at an unexpected time. As a result, the karma of the physician and the patient will both suffer. Some Hindus think that because it goes against the concept of ahimsa, or “doing no harm,” euthanasia should be forbidden.However, some Hindus contend that helping someone end their life of suffering fulfils their moral obligations and is a good deed.It is not against Vedic standards that forbid suicide for a man to take up the mahaprastha (great departure) on a trip that ends in death when he gets incurably ill or suffers a grievous misfortune, as Govardana and Kulluka emphasised in their Commentaries on Manu.
The majority of Christians oppose euthanasia.Christianity believes that as life is a gift from God, it should be lived to the maximum. We should cherish birth and death because they are essential to the processes of life that God created. Thus, even in cases where an individual is innocent and wishes to pass away, no human has the authority to end another person’s life.
Muslims oppose euthanasia because it affirms that Allah is the only one who has the power to choose a person’s length of life and that life is sacrosanct. There should be no human intervention in this.
CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY
Like the constitutions of all other nations, India’s is a particular legal document that establishes the boundaries and core concepts of the state and guarantees citizens certain fundamental rights. These rights uphold each person’s inherent human dignity and are the embodiment of the concept of human dignity. The Indian Constitution’s Article 21 protects a person’s right to a decent existence but simultaneously forbids them from dying with dignity. In India, the value of a good life is highly regarded, and the state is mandated by the Constitution to provide healthcare to all individuals and to protect their life that one deserves.Component of an individual’s right to life is the freedom to a dignified death.However, while discussing issues such as the freedom to death and euthanasia within the framework of Indian society, one must also take into account the viewpoint of the lower classes, which includes the roughly 200 million people who live in poverty. Since life is nothing more than the struggle to survive physically, the perspective of individuals who still fight for their fundamental right to live must be taken into account in the “Right To Die” argument.Ironically, there is a society in India dedicated to the “Right to Die with Dignity,” but no equivalent organisation exists for the “Right to Live with Dignity”.
However, the right to die honorably is not the same as the right to live; rather, it is a component of that right. An individual who suffers from an incurable sickness will eventually die because there is no way to cure them. This patient is in pain and is dependent on outside treatment only to survive. Eliminating euthanasia in this case would protect the individual’s fundamental right under Article 21—that is, ensuring the right to pass away with integrity.
EUTHANASIA’S LEGAL POSITION WITHIN INDIA
Both encouraging suicide and making an attempt at suicide are illegal in India.The legality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was litigated at the Apex Court in 1994. In a historic choice, In light of Article 21 (the Right to Life) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court declared that IPC Sec. 309 is unconstitutional. The situation of a rape victim who was put on trial for the crime of attempting suicide was described by Supreme Court Justice B. L. Hansaria. “Persecution” is how the judge in P. Rathinam v. Union of India summed up her decision. The Indian Supreme Court heard a compelling case in 1996 on the abetment of suicide under section 306 of the penal code.One of the essential freedoms guaranteed by the Indian Constitution is the right to life. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees everyone the right to life. There is an argument that Article 21’s right to life includes the right to die.
Thus, a person has the legal right to commit a mercy killing. After the decision of a five-judge Supreme Court panel in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, it is evident that the “right to die” is not included in the “right to life” as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
After Sohanlal Walmiki killed and maimed Aruna Shanbug, a nurse at the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Parel, Mumbai, on November 27, 1973, the subject gained significant traction in India. After that, she entered a vegetative state. Social activist Pinki Virani requested passive euthanasia for the victim, but the Supreme Court dismissed her request, citing opposition from the medical staff. However, the court was granted many restrictions after passive euthanasia became lawful, including the requirement that any decision regarding the practice be made with the victim’s best interests in mind and approved by the appropriate High Court. Moreover, India has legalised passive euthanasia as of March 2018. “Living wills” were also allowed by the Court, but only in specific circumstances. For example, such wills have to be made in writing, the maker must be of sound mind and able to understand the consequences of their actions, they cannot be under duress, at least two witnesses must be present when they sign the will, and a Judicial Magistrate of First Class must countersign the will.
Passive euthanasia is the practice of not providing medical attention or aid to a passing away patient who has little chance of survival. A five-judge Constitutional Bench led by the Chief Justice of India Dipak Kumar Mishra, J., determined in four separate and recurrent opinions that an individual’s dignity is lost if they are forced to suffer as a result of receiving needless medical care and that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures the right to dignity and life, also governs the right to die with dignity. In contrast, depriving anyone of self-worth at the end of their lifespan is the same as depriving them a meaningful life, according to D.Y. Chandrachud, J. While theologies, law, culture, and morality have differed on the issue of if the right to live comprises the right to leave this world, they all agree that a person should die with dignity, according to a separate ruling by A.K. Sikri, J.
The Law Commission also recommended legalising euthanasia in its 241st Report.
In the landmark euthanasia case Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., the Apex Court declared that the “right to die with dignity” is a fundamental right, upholding the legalisation of passive euthanasia. A fully developed, rational individual with an active mind is capable of declining medical care or making the decision not to accept it. He may decide to forego the procedures and die naturally.
The 2016 bill titled “The Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients”
An organisation called Common Cause filed a Writ Petition with the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2005 on behalf of the general public, asking for the acceptance of advanced directives regarding the medical care that patients are willing to receive in the event of a persistent vegetative state, coma, or long-term unconsciousness. The Indian government was instructed to bring the issue up for debate in Parliament after a five-judge bench declined to issue an order.Consequently, in May 2016, a proposal of “The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) bill” was received by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The previous bill was merely an updated version of a proposed law that was submitted to The Law Commission of India’s 196th report in 2006–20.
LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
- Autonomy and Right to Die:Arguments for and against euthanasia frequently centre on a person’s right to autonomy, which gives them the power to decide how to end their life and manage their own passing.
- Quality of Life:Particularly in situations of terminal illness or excruciating pain, the ethical discussion around euthanasia focuses on maintaining human dignity and relieving extreme suffering.
- Role of Medical Professionals:Since their primary responsibility is to heal and alleviate suffering, medical professionals are faced with ethical and legal quandaries when it comes to their involvement in the intentional taking of life.
- Legal Framework:Laws pertaining to euthanasia differ worldwide. While some nations have clear laws that permit or forbid euthanasia, others do not, which forces judges to intervene and make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
SUGGESTIONS
From my perspective the right to pass away respectfully and euthanasia have grown to be very sensitive subjects during the past 10 years. Though the concept of euthanasia has been the focus of numerous conversations due to recent events, it is still uncertain. When euthanasia is brought up, several points of view that base their arguments on morality, religion, and the law are brought up, which makes mercy killing a serious social and legal issue.
India in particular needs to have well-crafted euthanasia laws given the current state of the planet. It is necessary to carefully consider the nation’s numerous religious, cultural, philosophical, and physical aspects when crafting the rules and regulations.
Legalising euthanasia—passive as well as active—should only happen in very particular circumstances and only after much research has been completed. Money-hungry medical personnel and family members have occasionally taken advantage of the lives of their patients. To prevent this, we must continue to tightly control the situation. The middle class and lower classes who cannot afford the superior healthcare offered by private facilities must also be considered by the government. The mere legalisation of passive euthanasia in India will not have any effect unless and until every citizen of the nation has equal access to healthcare.
Scientific and technological advancements have significantly changed our understanding of life and death, allowing for longer lifespans and death. This has increased public awareness of the problem of death and dying, enabling many in excruciating pain to live longer. A number of recommendations are required to address the appropriate use of euthanasia. First and first, euthanasia-related laws must be examined and approved to guarantee that those who choose to live in spite of their pain be saved. Second, to lessen the strain on their families, patients with terminal illnesses ought to have financial assistance. Third, to help them make educated decisions, doctors should receive training in the application of contemporary medical knowledge and technology. Fourth, in order for doctors to develop moral and ethical principles and be able to do everything in their power to save the lives of patients experiencing excruciating pain, a solid doctor-patient relationship is necessary. Finally, patients ought to be given the choice between life and death.
CONCLUSION
In India, euthanasia is a contentious topic with proponents and opponents. Some contend that it is ethically acceptable, while others think it is readily concealable. While passive euthanasia is now permitted by the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, active euthanasia is still prohibited. In addition, the Indian legislature ought to enact a specific law addressing all facets of euthanasia and permit vocational euthanasia.The suggestions of the Law Commission of India and the guidelines from the Aruna case should be considered while drafting legislation to prevent unethical behaviour and the misuse of euthanasia. In the modern period, euthanasia is a contentious topic with both proponents and opponents.
In India, the right to life remains unfulfilled, and due to Western trends, a movement advocating for the “Right to Die” has surfaced. Adequate and useful legislation on this crucial problem is desperately needed.
A draft bill on the withholding and termination of medical care for terminally ill patients was released by the Union Health Ministry and has been amended and approved by the Law Commission of India. The judiciary hasn’t had the guts to read Article 21’s provision on the right to a dignified death, though. India is working to make euthanasia fully permissible under the constitution, although putting such a legal framework into place will not be easy. A single statute might not be enough in some circumstances, or it might even be detrimental, to grant complete constitutional legality. Laws may specify the conditions under which patients must request passive euthanasia, but the legitimacy of these restrictions must be confirmed by extensive study involving medical professionals and academics.
NAME- VANDANA CHARAYA
COLLEGE : IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY