EUTHANASIA AND RIGHT TO DIE

Abstract

Euthanasia, or “mercy killing,” refers to intentionally ending a person’s life to alleviate unbearable suffering, sparking significant ethical, legal, and moral debates. It can be voluntary, non-voluntary, active, or passive, with each type raising unique considerations. The “right to die” aligns with principles of personal autonomy, dignity, and relief from suffering but faces opposition grounded in concerns over the sanctity of life, potential abuse, and ethical dilemmas for medical professionals. It is one of the most sensitive and controversial topics in modern society, raising profound ethical, legal, and moral questions. This article provides an overview of euthanasia, explores its types and its  legal status.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia is derived from the Greek words “eu” (good) and “thanatos” (death), meaning “good death.” It aims to provide a dignified end to life for individuals suffering from terminal illnesses or irreversible conditions causing immense physical and emotional distress.Euthanasia refers to the act of intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve suffering, and it can be categorized in several ways. Voluntary euthanasia happens when the patient clearly agrees to it. For example, a terminally ill person might request a lethal injection to end their pain. Non-voluntary euthanasia is when the patient cannot give consent, such as if they are in a coma. In these cases, the decision is usually made by family members or medical professionals. Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand, is done without the patient’s consent or even against their will. This is widely viewed as unethical and is often considered equivalent to murder .Euthanasia can also be classified as active or passive. Active euthanasia involves taking specific actions to cause death, like giving a lethal dose of medication. Passive euthanasia, however, involves stopping or not starting treatments that keep the patient alive, such as turning off a ventilator or stopping feeding. This allows the person to die naturally.

Right to Die 

The “right to die” refers to the belief that individuals have a fundamental right to decide when and how they end their lives, particularly in cases of terminal illness, chronic pain, or unbearable suffering. Advocates argue that this right is an extension of personal autonomy and dignity, allowing individuals to make crucial decisions about their own lives without undue interference. The debate over the right to die thus hinges on balancing individual freedoms with societal responsibilities and ethical principles.

The debate over the right to die involves strong arguments on both sides. Those in favor argue that euthanasia can provide relief from suffering for patients with terminal illnesses or chronic pain, offering a compassionate way to end physical and emotional agony. They also emphasize respect for personal autonomy, as individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own lives and bodies, including the choice to end their suffering. Many believe euthanasia allows people to maintain dignity in death by avoiding prolonged illness and dependency. Additionally, prolonged medical care for terminally ill patients can be financially burdensome for families, and euthanasia can ease this strain while directing resources toward patients with better chances of recovery.

On the other hand, opponents argue that life is sacred, and many religions and cultures view taking a life, even to relieve suffering, as morally wrong. They also warn about the risk of abuse, as legalizing euthanasia could lead to misuse, especially for vulnerable groups like the elderly or disabled, who might face undue pressure from families or financial concerns. Ethical dilemmas arise for medical professionals, whose primary duty is to save lives, not end them. There is also the possibility of recovery to consider, as medical advancements may provide new treatments or cures for conditions once thought hopeless. Prematurely opting for euthanasia could mean losing the chance for recovery or relief.

Legal Status Of Euthanasia 

The legality of euthanasia varies greatly across the world. Some countries allow it under strict rules, while others strongly oppose it. In the Netherlands, euthanasia and assisted suicide have been legal since 2002, but they must follow strict guidelines, such as ensuring the patient’s request is voluntary and carefully considered. Belgium also legalized euthanasia in 2002 and even allows it for minors under certain conditions. Switzerland permits assisted suicide but not active euthanasia, with organizations like Dignitas helping patients end their lives legally. In Canada, Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) became legal in 2016, but patients must meet specific criteria to qualify. In Australia, some states, like Victoria and Western Australia, have legalized voluntary assisted dying. On the other hand, many countries, such as India, prohibit euthanasia due to cultural, religious, and ethical reasons. However, some nations do allow passive euthanasia, where life-sustaining treatments are withheld, under specific conditions.

Legal Status Of Euthanasia  in India

Euthanasia in India revolves around the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. A number of fundamental rights that are included in the category of “personal liberty” are covered by the broad interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, A few of these rights are the right to privacy, shelter, livelihood, the right to health, and the right to live with dignity. The Supreme Court has given “life” a very broad definition and an expansive meaning as defined by Article 21.

There are many cases where different judgements were passed on the legality of the euthanasia and Right to Die with Dignity as a Fundamental Right. Some of those are

State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal (1987)

The Bombay High Court held that the  right to die is included under right to life under article 21. It declared attempt to suicide under  Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that if a person has the freedom to live with dignity, they should also have the autonomy to end their life when living becomes unbearable. This case was first to recognize  the right to die as part of the right to life.

 P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)

The Supreme Court extended the reasoning of the Maruty Sripati Dubal case, declaring Section 309 IPC unconstitutional. The Court observed that the right to life includes the right to not live a forced life and held that criminalizing suicide violated Article 21. It argued that an individual should have autonomy over their life and death. However, this judgment was changed in the Gian Kaur case.

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)

the SC overruled P. Rathinam and upheld Section 309 IPC as constitutional. The Court held that the right to Die does not include the right to Life . However, it recognized that the “right to die with dignity” is part of the right to live with dignity, applicable in cases of terminal illness or natural death processes. This judgment set the foundation for later discussions on euthanasia.

 Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)

This case involved a nurse in a vegetative state for 38 years. The Supreme Court legalized passive euthanasia under strict conditions, allowing the withdrawal of life support for terminally ill patients in such states. The Court distinguished between active euthanasia (illegal) and passive euthanasia (permitted under medical and judicial oversight). It emphasized that decisions must be in the patient’s best interest and involve approval from the High Court.

Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)

This case recognized the “right to die with dignity” as a fundamental part of Article 21. It legalized passive euthanasia and upheld the use of Advance Directives (Living Wills), allowing individuals to decide in advance about withdrawal of medical treatment in terminal cases. The Court provided guidelines for drafting and implementing Advance Directives, ensuring the process is legally and medically secure.

Conclusion

The debate on euthanasia and the right to die involves complex moral, legal, and ethical questions. While some view euthanasia as a violation of the sanctity of life and believe only God should decide the end of life, others emphasize personal autonomy and the right to end unbearable suffering. With advancements in human rights and technology, many argue that individuals should have the freedom to choose a dignified end to their lives, especially in cases of terminal illness or severe pain. However, concerns about misuse, ethical dilemmas, and the involvement of medical practitioners make universal acceptance challenging.In India, the 2018 Supreme Court judgment in the Common Cause case recognized passive euthanasia and introduced the concept of Advance Directives and Living Wills, empowering individuals to make decisions about their end-of-life care. While this ruling was a significant step, the absence of comprehensive legislation leaves the matter unresolved. Recent updates in 2023 aim to make these guidelines more practical, but the law remains a work in progress.The challenge lies in striking a balance between respecting individual rights and ensuring safeguards against abuse. Until a robust legal framework is established, the debate over euthanasia will continue, reflecting the ongoing evolution of societal and legal perspectives.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is euthanasia?
    Euthanasia, also known as “mercy killing,” involves intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve them from unbearable suffering, often due to terminal illness or irreversible conditions.
  2. What is the right to die?
    The right to die is the belief that individuals should have control over how and when they end their lives, especially when facing terminal illness or severe suffering.
  3. Is euthanasia legal in India?
    Active euthanasia is illegal, but passive euthanasia is permitted under strict conditions, as outlined in landmark cases like Aruna Shanbaug (2011) and Common Cause (2018).
  4. What is a living will?
    A living will is a legal document where individuals specify their preferences for medical treatment in case they become incapable of making decisions later, including end-of-life care.
  5. What are the ethical concerns around euthanasia?
    Critics raise issues like the sanctity of life, potential misuse, and ethical conflicts for medical professionals who are tasked with saving lives.
  6. What is the difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide?
    In euthanasia, a third party (e.g., a doctor) actively ends the patient’s life. In assisted suicide, the individual administers the means to end their own life, often with medical guidance.

References

https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/common-cause-a-regd-society-vs-union-of-india-uoi-and-ors
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=247c8c66-b3ed-4179-bfe1-7df289a0cde5
https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org/case/justice-ks-puttaswamy-ors-vs-union-of-india-ors

Posanpally Sathvik Reddy

ICFAI Law School , Hyderabad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *