- Author : Kumarappan M Bcom llb (Hons), Sastra university ,thanjavur, Tamilnadu
Abstract
The landmark judgment in Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India (2018) by the Supreme Court of India recognized the “Right to Die with Dignity” as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This case established the legality of passive euthanasia and living wills, setting a precedent for end-of-life care and patient autonomy. The judgment reflects a progressive step in balancing individual liberty with medical ethics and societal values.
Keywords
Passive euthanasia,Living will,Right to die with dignity,Article 21,Persistent Vegetative State (PVS),Medical ethics
To the Point
This article critically analyzes the case and its implications, focusing on legal principles, judicial reasoning, and its impact on Indian jurisprudence. It also discusses the intersection of constitutional law, ethics, and human rights concerning euthanasia.
The Proof
The petition by Common Cause, a registered society, sought legal recognition of passive euthanasia and living wills, arguing that an individual has the right to refuse medical treatment to avoid unnecessary suffering. The court delved into constitutional interpretations, previous judgments, and international practices to arrive at its decision.
The five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, unanimously held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity. The court also provided guidelines to regulate passive euthanasia and enforce living wills.
Case Laws
- Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India
• In this landmark case, the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia under certain strict conditions. The case involved a nurse, Aruna Shanbaug, who was in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for decades. The court recognized that while the sanctity of life is paramount, there are situations where prolonging life through artificial means violates human dignity. This judgment laid the groundwork for the recognition of passive euthanasia but left its legislative formalization to Parliament.
2. Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab
• In this case, the Supreme Court held that the “right to life” under Article 21 does not include the “right to die.” However, the judgment also stated that the right to die with dignity could be a part of Article 21 in cases where life is prolonged artificially against a person’s wishes. This observation provided a nuanced understanding that influenced later rulings, including the Common Cause case.
3. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India
• This case established the constitutional right to privacy as intrinsic to Article 21. The court’s emphasis on personal autonomy and human dignity became instrumental in recognizing an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment and make end-of-life decisions in the Common Cause judgment.
4. Airedale NHS Trust vs. Bland (United Kingdom)
• The House of Lords in this case approved the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a Persistent Vegetative State. It marked one of the earliest international acknowledgments of passive euthanasia, heavily influencing Indian jurisprudence. The judgment emphasized that continuing life support in such cases serves no purpose and undermines the patient’s dignity.
5. Washington vs. Glucksberg (United States)
• This U.S. Supreme Court case dealt with physician-assisted suicide. The court rejected a constitutional right to assisted suicide but acknowledged that states could regulate end-of-life decisions. The case underscored the importance of procedural safeguards in euthanasia cases, a principle echoed in the Common Cause ruling.
6. Cruzan vs. Director, Missouri Department of Health (United States)
• The U.S. Supreme Court recognized an individual’s right to refuse medical treatment but upheld the state’s authority to require clear and convincing evidence of a patient’s wishes. This case influenced the emphasis on living wills and advance directives in the Common Cause judgment.
7. State of Maharashtra vs. Maruti Shripati Dubal
• This Indian case struck down Section 309 of the IPC (criminalizing attempted suicide), asserting that the right to life includes the right to die in certain circumstances. While this view was later revisited in Gian Kaur, it reflects the evolving judicial attitude toward euthanasia and end-of-life decisions.
Legal Jargon
• Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment.
• Living Will: A legal document stating an individual’s preference regarding medical treatment in case of incapacitation.
• Doctrine of Parens Patriae: The state’s responsibility to protect individuals unable to act in their own interest.
Conclusion
The judgment in Common Cause vs. Union of India is a monumental decision that underscores the interplay of law, ethics, and human rights. It empowers individuals with autonomy over their medical decisions, reflecting a compassionate and progressive judicial approach. However, it also raises challenges in implementation, especially in ensuring adherence to guidelines and addressing societal stigma.
Here’
an expanded FAQs section to cover more aspects of the case:
FAQs
Q1: What is the significance of the Common Cause judgment?
The judgment legally recognizes passive euthanasia and living wills as part of the fundamental right to die with dignity under Article 21. It ensures that individuals have control over end-of-life decisions, thereby respecting their autonomy and human dignity.
Q2: Is active euthanasia permitted in India?
No, active euthanasia, which involves the deliberate act of causing a person’s death (e.g., administering a lethal injection), remains illegal and punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The Common Cause judgment only permits passive euthanasia.
Q3: What is the difference between passive and active euthanasia?
• Passive Euthanasia: Involves withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment, such as turning off a ventilator or stopping medication.
• Active Euthanasia: Involves a deliberate act to cause death, such as administering a lethal drug.
The court only allows passive euthanasia in India, subject to stringent guidelines.
Q4: What is a living will?
A living will is a legal document in which an individual specifies their wishes regarding medical treatment in case they become incapable of communicating their decisions due to illness or incapacity. It provides clarity on whether the person wants life support or other interventions to prolong life.
Q5: How can someone execute a valid living will in India?
A living will must:
1. Be made by a competent adult of sound mind.
2. Clearly specify medical instructions under specific circumstances.
3. Be signed by the person and two independent witnesses.
4. Be countersigned by a Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), who will also ensure it complies with legal requirements.
Q6: What safeguards were introduced in the judgment to prevent misuse?
The court laid down strict guidelines for implementing passive euthanasia and living wills:
• Approval of a medical board consisting of specialists.
• Judicial oversight by a magistrate.
• Verification that the living will is genuine and made voluntarily.
These safeguards aim to prevent coercion, fraud, and misuse.
Q7: What happens if a person does not have a living will?
In the absence of a living will, the patient’s family or next of kin can approach the medical board and the court to seek approval for withdrawing life support. The decision will depend on the medical condition of the patient and adherence to legal guidelines.
Q8: How does this judgment impact healthcare providers?
Healthcare providers are required to respect living wills and the decisions of patients or their legal representatives. However, they must follow the court-mandated guidelines to avoid legal liability and ensure ethical compliance.
Q9: Does this judgment apply to minors or mentally incapacitated individuals?
No, the judgment applies only to competent adults who can make informed decisions. For minors or mentally incapacitated individuals, decisions are made under the doctrine of parens patriae, where the state or court acts in the best interest of the individual.
Q10: Are there similar laws in other countries?
Yes, several countries recognize passive euthanasia and living wills. For example:
• Netherlands and Belgium: Allow both passive and active euthanasia under strict conditions.
• United States: Some states, like Oregon and Washington, permit physician-assisted suicide under “Death with Dignity” laws.
• United Kingdom: Passive euthanasia is permitted, but active euthanasia is illegal.
Q11: How does this judgment align with religious beliefs in India?
The judgment respects the diverse religious beliefs in India by emphasizing individual choice and autonomy. While some religions oppose euthanasia, the court has balanced ethical, medical, and legal perspectives to uphold dignity.
Q12: Can the guidelines laid down by the court be amended?
Yes, the guidelines are interim measures. The court explicitly stated that Parliament has the authority to enact a comprehensive law on passive euthanasia and living wills.
References
- M.P. Jain – Indian Constitutional Law
- Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Global Views on Choosing to Die by Michael Cholbi
- “The Right to Die with Dignity: An Indian Perspective”,NUJS Law Review, 2018.
- https://www.manupatra.com
- https://www.barandbench.com
