Author: Alisha Fatima Safvi, Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University
Introduction
The word “euthanasia” itself comes from the Greek words “eu” (good) and “thanatos” (death). The idea is that instead of condemning someone to a slow, painful, or undignified death, euthanasia would allow the patient to experience a relatively “good death.”1 Instead than taking a patient’s life, euthanasia involves granting them the right to a peaceful, end-of-life experience. Euthanasia, sometimes also refers to as “Mercy Killing”. Within the framework of historical evolution, the term “euthanasia” did not originate until the early 1900s; before to then, it was referred to as “easy death” or “mercy.” Death should be merciful is not a novel concept. It makes sense that someone who is terminally sick or severely injured might want to pass away because death is unavoidable and the agony is so intense that living no longer gives happiness. The prospect of protecting one of the most contentious and obscure patient rights—the right to die—has been extensively debated in various nations since the middle of the 20th century.
This contentious issue is discussed since it transgresses long-standing medical ethics and patient care laws. The subject of euthanasia is deeply contentious, as it intersects with fundamental ethical dilemmas, religious doctrines, judicial considerations, and clinical responsibilities. Assisted suicide is the most controversial topic in modern medicine. It involves helping a seriously ill patient die in accordance with his/her wishes. Euthanasia, like body donation and cloning, has caused great controversy due to evolving medical attitudes. For the severely sick patient, his doctor, legislators, and the general public, the capacity to prolong death with the aid of modern technology has created a dilemma about the patient’s right to die. Euthanasia has been legalized in countries like Switzerland (1942) Australia (1996), the Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2002), and Luxembourg (2009). Physician -assisted suicide (PAS) is permitted by law in a number of nations as of 2024; each has its unique set of rules and restrictions. The countries are: Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Few states of USA and Canada.
There are various types of act of Euthanasia, extending from Active euthanasia, Passive euthanasia, Voluntary (statutory) euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia, Physician assisted suicide and legitimate medical euthanasia.2
Does extending life to the greatest extent feasible, even in cases when it is of extremely low quality, fall under the purview of the duty to protect life? The ethical as well as the legal dilemma is discussed in the following blog.
________________
1 https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/euthanasia
2 TY – JOUR AU – Gandhi, Kusum PY – 2017/04/01 SP – 105 EP – 108 T1 – Euthanasia: A Brief History and Perspectives in India VL -33 DO – 10.5005/jp-journals-10056-0047 JO – International Journal of Education and Research in Health Sciences, ER –
Ethical and Legal Dilemmas in Euthanasia
Euthanasia poses a moral, legal, and social conundrum which needs to be addressed in an altruistic and judicious manner. No religion advocates and propagates euthanasia. A person’s right to a voluntary death is not recognized by Islamic jurisprudence, which is founded on a persuasive reading of the holy Koran. Two primary explanations can be used to summarize Islamic arguments against euthanasia. Islam does not permit the taking of life for any cause, including suicide or euthanasia, since life is precious. Two verses affirm that Allah determines the duration of each person’s life.3
Hinduism forbids the deliberate killing of oneself out of self-interest.4 Self-destruction is not permitted by Roman Catholics.5 While euthanasia is prohibited by religion, certain intellectuals, like Aristotle, Plato, and Pythagoras, supported the practice.
Despite the widespread opinion and religious stance that euthanasia is an unethical procedure, one of the strongest objections to it is the expectation that it will be handled carelessly in the future. Netherland is the first country to legalize euthanasia with some terms and conditions. The rules that have to be followed by the physician in the Netherlands for practicing euthanasia are mentioned below:
1. The patient’s suffering is unbearable.
2. The disease is incurable.
3. Patient’s condition is terminal.
4. Patient’s request for death.
Arguments in favour of Euthanasia
One could argue that euthanasia is a patient’s or an individual’s right to privacy or the right to self-determination. The liberty to shape one’s death reflects a broader human right — the ability to decide not only when life ends but also how it ends, grounded in personal dignity and autonomy. Encouraging euthanasia won’t always have unsatisfactory outcomes. In order to demonstrate that euthanasia is often trouble-free, proponents of the practice frequently cite the countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and other nations where it has been authorized. Some people argue that it is preferable to help someone die than to let them suffer any longer. In the case of Libertarian right- The state and other persons have no authority to meddle in matters pertaining to death because it is a personal matter. There are two sides to the debate over legalizing euthanasia: moral and practical. A money issue is the tangible problem, and the patient’s difficult existence is the moral lesson. In this context, their wishes can be granted without attracting any legal liability or repercussions. Euthanasia is favouring the patient’s right and wish in certain legalized conditions. The patient’s pain and suffering will be lessened, which is beneficial. Thus, patients will get what they want when legalization occurs.
_______________
3 Kairash Aramesh and Heydar Shadi. Euthanasia: An lslamic Ethical Perspective. Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol, Feb 2007; 6 (Supp. 5): 35-38.
4 Crawford SC. Dilemmas of life and Death: Hindu Ethics in a North American Context. Albany, New York, USA: State University of New York Press; 1995: 113.
5 Nandy Apurba. Principles of Forensic Medicine, 2nd Ed Reprint 2005: 37-38
Arguments against Euthanasia
The critics of euthanasia argue that there is neither a moral right to die nor a justification for taking a life. Many murders will take place in the name of Euthanasia and little to no action can be brought upon it if it gets legalized. Legalizing euthanasia will give people the right to end the lives of the sick and aged. The major concern lies in the sanctioning of assisted suicide may occasionally be abused. As of now it’s illegal and unethical to take away a person’s life but in case of legalisation of Euthanasia many innocents will lose their life in the name of it. Many people argue that not all deaths are painful and euthanasia can be substituted with the effective use of pain relief in conjunction with the termination of active therapy. It would imply that some lives—those of the ill or disabled—are less valuable than others. Legalisation of Euthanasia will majorly affect medical profession and complicate the relation of trust between the medical professional and client, hindering effective health care. In countries where literacy rate is lower, problems like starvation, poverty, etc are prevalent it’s hard to implement laws regarding euthanasia as many people are not even aware of this situation. Thus, Euthanasia is still a problem. The slippery slope argument is against legalising euthanasia because there is a chance for abusing.
Legal challenges in implementing Euthanasia laws-Indian perspective
In India, Euthanasia has no legal status. The act of Euthanasia is still considered as an act of offence and illegal according to Indian laws. Both attempting suicide and aiding and abetting suicide are crimes covered by Sections 309 and 306 of the IPC, respectively. Since suicide attempts are typically carried out by people in extreme mental desperation, there has been a real push in recent years to decriminalize and repeal Section 309 of the IPC in order to avoid punishing those who have attempted suicide. Article 21 establishes the “right to life” as a natural right. However, suicide is considered an unnatural means of ending one’s life and is therefore incompatible with the concept of “right to life.” As such, it is punishable under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The issue of euthanasia directly came up before the Supreme Court in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaugh v. Union of India 6. On Monday, March 7, 2011, the Supreme Court rendered a landmark ruling by approving “passive euthanasia,” which entails taking patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) off of life support. Legalization of “passive euthanasia” is possible under several circumstances. High courts were empowered to make decisions about requests for mercy killings, and the conditions were laid forth. Nonetheless, “active euthanasia,” which involves taking a life with the application of deadly drugs, was categorically rejected by the court.
The publication of the Seventeenth Law Commission of India’s 241st report on the topic of euthanasia in 2012 marked a significant turning point in the discussion. The paper examined euthanasia in the context of the provisions outlined in the Indian Penal Code. According to the Law Commission, a competent patient is not guilty of attempting suicide under Section 309 IPC if they make the “informed decision” to let nature take their course. Furthermore, a physician who declines to provide care is not guilty of culpable homicide under Section 299 in conjunction with Section 304 IPC or of aiding and abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC.
_______________
6 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/235821/
Legislative trends and future directions
There appears to be a growing trend in numerous nations to legalize the practice of euthanasia. Talking about one of the latest, Swiss law has cleared the way for a coffin-shaped capsule that promises a calm and largely painless death in less than a minute.7 By lowering the oxygen in the pod to a critical level, hypoxia and hypocapnia cause the death. Euthanasia is outlawed in the vast majority of Western nations other than the ones we discussed previously. That being said, fines are routinely reduced and rarely applied, and public debates on legislation allowing assisted suicide are frequent. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are said to have substantial and growing popular support in Western Europe, whereas acceptance is declining in Central and Eastern Europe. In contrast, individuals attempting to carry out suicide or euthanasia are subject to harsh regulations and penalties in Islamic nations.
Every legal system requires that a request for euthanasia or PAS be made voluntarily, thoughtfully, knowingly, and continuously. Both clear written consent and mental capacity at the time of the request are requirements for the person making the request. There are many countries where passive euthanasia has taken a leap in the 21st century including India as well. According to the stats and researches, countries that are plagued with innumerable problems like poverty, illiteracy, starvation, ill health care system, lack of awareness etc issue of Euthanasia seems irrelevant as of now. Many Asian countries are yet to regard this as an issue.
We can see a substantial growth in Euthanasia in following years with many laws in accordance to prevent it from its misuse.
Conclusion
The discussion surrounding euthanasia is intricate, engaging various ethical, legal, religious, and medical perspectives. Euthanasia has always been controversial, but opinions have changed throughout time due to significant legal developments. With the growing change in social and cultural values around globe Euthanasia seems more like a solution than a problem. In any culture, freedom of choice and autonomy are valued, yet they have their limitations. Numerous regulations in our democratic countries restrict personal freedom and choice in order to safeguard the greater good of the community. The ethical dilemmas associated with euthanasia are profound, touching on the sanctity of life, the rights of individuals to make decisions about their own deaths, and the potential for abuse.
The global trend for euthanasia legalization is a reflection of the desire to end suffering and the growing acceptance of patient autonomy. But putting such rules into practice has difficulties: how to handle different cultural and religious contexts, ensure that consent is given voluntarily, and prevent abuse. The euthanasia debate is likely to grow as medical technology develops and society attitudes change, necessitating careful thought and strong safeguards to strike a balance between individual rights and larger ethical and societal ramifications. However, many transformations in the various democracies can be seen, we hope for a better regulation of laws and acceptance of the issue worldwide.
_______________________
7 https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/switzerland-legalises-suicide-sarco-machine-1884986-2021-12-07
FAQS
Q1. Is euthanasia legal in India?
Only passive euthanasia is legal under specific conditions following Common Cause v. Union of India (2018). Active euthanasia remains illegal.
Q2. What is the difference between passive and active euthanasia?
Passive: Withdrawal of life support or treatment.
Active: Administration of a lethal agent to cause death.
Q3. Is it legally permissible for an individual to create a ‘Living Will’ in India?
Yes. As per Supreme Court guidelines (2018), a competent individual can execute an Advance Directive, also known as a Living Will.
Q4. Does euthanasia violate the Indian Constitution?
While it challenges the conventional understanding of Article 21, the court has interpreted the “right to die with dignity” as an extension of this fundamental right.
Q5. Are there safeguards against misuse?
Yes. Judicial review, medical board approvals, and mental competence assessments are mandated before executing passive euthanasia.
