Author’s Name- Gauri Shukla, Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal, [M.P]
Introduction
Since its origin, the idea of euthanasia has generated controversy. Euthanasia comes from the Greek words “Eu,” which means “good,” and “Thanatos,” which means “death.” When combined, they signify “good death.” Euthanasia is the hastening of a patient’s death in order to end their suffering. Since most legal systems do not specifically address it, it is typically viewed as either murder (if committed by someone else) or suicide (if committed by the patient himself).
The article critically analyses the divisive topic of euthanasia in India, examining whether legalizing it will put the nation on a precarious slope or whether it should be acknowledged as a fundamental human right. The conversation examines the ethical, societal, and constitutional ramifications of granting people the right to die with dignity. It is based on the changing legal landscape, especially the Supreme Court’s approval of passive euthanasia under stringent guidelines.
Abstract
This article examines the sensitive and intricate topic of euthanasia in India, examining whether legalization would be a risky slippery slope or if it should be acknowledged as a basic human right. The essay explores the changing legal landscape, constitutional interpretations, especially under Article-21, and moral conundrums surrounding end-of-life decisions in light of the Supreme Court of India’s decision to legalize passive euthanasia under stringent guidelines. It explores the differences between active and passive euthanasia, the possibility of abuse in a society with a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds, and how cultural and religious beliefs impact legal and public debate. The article seeks to provide a fair analysis of whether euthanasia in India improves individual autonomy or jeopardizes the lives of those who are vulnerable by critically evaluating legal decisions, moral arguments, and the effectiveness of current protections.
Meaning and Types of Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a deliberate termination of a person’s life, usually to eliminate their suffering. Euthanasia is occasionally carried out by doctors at the request of patients who are in excruciating pain and have a terminal illness.
Numerous aspects must be considered in this complex procedure. A person’s personal ideas and desires, local regulations, and their physical and mental health all come into play.
Active Euthanasia vs. Passive Euthanasia
Most people associate euthanasia with a doctor terminating a patient’s life directly. We call this active euthanasia. Deliberately giving someone a lethal dose of a sedative is known as active euthanasia.
Withholding or limiting life-sustaining therapies in order to hasten a person’s death is known as passive euthanasia. Additionally, a physician may recommend progressively higher dosages of painkillers. The dosages could eventually become toxic.
Because of this, it is difficult to distinguish between palliative care and passive euthanasia. The goal of palliative care [care for the terminally ill and their families, especially that provided by an organized health service] is to make patients as comfortable as possible as they near death.
A palliative care physician might, for instance, permit a patient who is nearing death quit taking a drug that has negative side effects. In other situations, they might permit someone to address extreme pain by taking a far higher dosage of a painkiller. This is frequently an essential component of quality palliative care. Many people do not view it as euthanasia.
Voluntary Euthanasia vs. Non-voluntary Euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia is defined as an one’s conscious decision to seek aid in ending their life. The individual must completely consent and show that they are aware of what is about to happen.
When a close relative or other individual makes the decision to end a person’s life it is referred to as non-voluntary euthanasia. This usually happens when someone is rendered permanently incapacitated or entirely unconscious.
Usually, nonvoluntary euthanasia includes passive euthanasia, such as turning off life support for someone who is not showing any evidence of a functioning brain.
Legal & Constitutional Dimensions
The regulation of euthanasia raises difficult balance issues. On the one side, we have the patient’s ongoing suffering and the necessity to put an end to it as there is no chance for a future recovery. On the other hand, there are concerns about whether someone has the right to take their own life and, if so, how the government can control the grave consequences that result from that right. I examine India’s present euthanasia framework, paying particular attention to the “right to die.”
Three cases—Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab in (1996), Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India in (2011), and Common Cause v. Union of India in (2018)—have established the present legal position on euthanasia. A crucial distinction has been noticed between both Active and Passive Euthanasia through different cases of both Active and Passive Euthanasia. When certain constructive steps are taken to end a patient’s life, this is known as active euthanasia. The removal of life-supporting measures that are keeping a patient alive is known as passive euthanasia. In Common Cause, the Supreme Court (sometimes known as “the Court”) further listed the distinctions.
Both domestic and international courts have always maintained that legislation—that is, acts that reflect the will of the people—is the only way to legalize active euthanasia. What’s the compass of the Indian Constitution’s right to unresistant euthanasia, given that active euthanasia isn’t fairly permitted? Our Constitution readily acknowledges mortal life’s sainthood. In circumstances other than those quested by law, the existent’s inalienable rights cannot be relinquished. a ruling by Aruna Shanbaug, individuals in a permanent vegetative state may request passive euthanasia by submitting an application to the High Court in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution. The courts’ adoption of a “parens patriae” status allowed for this.
In the Common Cause case, the Supreme Court also considered whether the “right to die with dignity” is included in the scope of the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court emphasized the dynamic and ever- changing nature of fundamental rights in its affirmative response. The Puttaswamy I ruling upheld individual dignity as falling under Article 21. The Court explained the right to live with mortal dignity as entails the right to enjoy a dignified life till death. According to the Court, this would involve a respectable dying process.
This enables a person in a chronic vegetative state or those who are terminally ill to request passive euthanasia in order to uphold their Article 21 right to a dignified death. The Court in Common Cause issued guidelines regarding Advance Directives (or “AD”), which are documents that outline a patient’s treatment choices and who would be qualified to make decisions on their behalf in the event that the patient is unable to do so, in order to give effect to this right. The standards still place a heavy burden on each applicant, even after they were changed in February 2023 to make it easier for more segments of society to use Ads.
The current situation lays a significant amount of onus on the patients’ relatives, who must go through an exhausting bureaucratic process to implement the ADs, which are notarized documents that are signed and testified in front of a judicial magistrate.
Although these rulings provide comprehensive guidelines for advance directives and passive euthanasia, the actual situation differs greatly because so few people are aware of these instructions. Making end-of-life decisions is extremely difficult, and more work needs to be done to translate these rulings and directives and make them available to everyone if we are to implement the right to live with dignity.
Social, Cultural, and Ethical Concerns
There are significant ethical and societal issues with the legalization of euthanasia, especially in a multicultural and socioeconomically diverse nation like India. Critics contend that especially in situations characterized by poverty, inadequate access to healthcare, or a lack of family and social support, vulnerable groups—such as the elderly, disabled, or terminally ill—may be quietly or explicitly coerced to choose death. In these situations, the decision to die can be motivated by coercion, neglect, or despair rather than genuine autonomy. There is increasing concern that euthanasia may be abused as a means of ending the lives of those deemed onerous in the absence of strict legal protections and efficient oversight.
A Human Right or A Slippery Slope?
Euthanasia proponents contend that it protects human dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty, especially for terminally ill patients who are in excruciating pain. They see it as an extension of the basic right to life and a caring decision.
Proponents warn that legalizing euthanasia, particularly without robust protections, may result in misuse, a disregard for palliative care, and a value of human life, particularly among the old, crippled, and those who are economically weak.
Euthanasia is currently legal in seven or eight nations, including the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, Colombia, Spain, Portugal, and New Zealand. These governments have done so primarily to protect the right to die with dignity, to provide relief from excruciating agony, and to respect individual autonomy. The majority of these nations allow “both active and passive euthanasia”, but only for those with terminal or incurable illnesses and under stringent legal protections. While active euthanasia (intentional action to end life) is still uncommon and contentious, passive euthanasia (withdrawing life support) is more often accepted worldwide. Due to ethical, cultural, and legal considerations, active euthanasia is still illegal in many countries, including- India, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and the majority of Asian and African countries.
Case Laws
State of Punjab v. Gian Kaur (1996)
-View on Euthanasia: Opposed both euthanasia and the right to die.
-Facts: Citing the right to die as part of the right to live, the petitioners contested the constitutionality of laws that criminalize suicide and its abetment.
-Judgment: The Supreme Court held that Article 21 (Right to Life) does not encompass the right to die. It nevertheless brought up an essential point that, even though suicide is not protected by the constitution, the “right to die with dignity” might be taken into account in cases of terminal illness, raising the possibility that euthanasia may be considered in the future.
-Significance: By differentiating between the right to die and the right to die with dignity, it set the stage for subsequent discussions.
Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)
-View on Euthanasia: Passive euthanasia is acknowledged under stringent legal regulations.
-Facts: For more than 37 years, Aruna Shanbaug was in a persistent vegetative state. A plea was filed for withdrawal of life support to allow her to die peacefully.
-Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that, with approval from the High Court, passive euthanasia—the cessation of life-sustaining treatment—could be lawfully allowed in certain extraordinary circumstances. However, Aruna’s hospital caregivers opposed euthanasia, thus she was not allowed to have it.
-Significance: This was the first time euthanasia was conditionally legalized in India, creating a precedent and legal procedure for passive euthanasia.
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)-
-View on Euthanasia: Fully legalized passive euthanasia and upheld the right to die with dignity.
-Facts: NGO Common Cause launched a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in order to prove the legality of advance medical directives or living wills as well as the right to die with dignity.
-Judgement: The Supreme Court acknowledged the right to die with dignity as a component of the fundamental right to life and ruled that passive euthanasia is legal under Article 21. Additionally, it legalized living wills, which let people decline life support when their condition was terminal.
-Significance: This landmark ruling upheld the constitutional ideal of human liberty and dignity while institutionalizing passive euthanasia in India.
Conclusion
In modern India, euthanasia continues to be one of the most morally, legally, and emotionally complicated topics. The issue over euthanasia is far from resolved as the nation struggles with conflicting values—respect for life, individual autonomy, societal duty, and religious sensitivity. Even if the Supreme Court has taken a positive step by legalizing passive euthanasia and accepting living wills as a component of the right to die with dignity under Article 21, active euthanasia remains prohibited due to the potential for abuse and the lack of a clear legal framework.
A growing consciousness of the right to a dignified death, especially for people suffering from terminal illnesses with no chance of recovery, is apparent in India’s cautious but important legal progress. The practical achievement of this right is still hindered nevertheless, by implementation challenges, low public awareness, and sociocultural resistance. To guarantee that euthanasia stays a compassionate and reasonable choice—rather than a means of abuse or neglect—more comprehensive legal clarification, public education, medical education, and ethical protections are desperately needed going forward. Resolving this extremely delicate issue in a populous and varied nation like India requires striking a balance between caution and compassion.
FAQs
Q1. What is euthanasia, and how is it classified?
A: Euthanasia is the intentional ending of a person’s life to relieve suffering, often in cases of terminal illness. It is classified as:
• Active euthanasia: Direct action to end life, such as giving a fatal injection
Passive euthanasia: Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.
Voluntary euthanasia: With the patient’s informed consent.
When a patient is asleep or unable of giving their consent, this is known as non-voluntary euthanasia.
Q2. Is euthanasia legal in India?
A: Passive euthanasia is legal in India under strict conditions following the Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) judgment. The Supreme Court ruled that terminally ill patients have the right to refuse life-prolonging treatment. However, active euthanasia is still prohibited by the Indian Penal Code and is punishable by law.
Q3. What is India’s legal justification for passive euthanasia?
A: The legal basis is Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court interpreted this to include the right to die with dignity, thereby allowing passive euthanasia and advance directives (living wills).
Q4. What protections does India provide for passive euthanasia?
A: Safeguards include:
Approval of the High Court
Medical board review
A valid and notarized living will (Advance Directive)
Oversight by the treating hospital and close relatives
These were further simplified in 2023 to make the process more accessible.
Q5. In India, what are the main moral and societal issues surrounding euthanasia?
A: Key concerns include:
Risk of misuse, especially among the elderly, disabled, or poor
Cultural and religious objections to ending life
Lack of awareness and legal literacy
Inadequate palliative care infrastructure
Critics argue that legalizing euthanasia could lead to involuntary decisions under financial or emotional pressure.
Q6. How does India compare with other countries on euthanasia laws?
A: Countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Spain, and New Zealand have legalized both active and passive euthanasia under strict regulations. India only permits passive euthanasia, and active euthanasia remains illegal, similar to most Asian and African nations.
Q7. Can a person in India refuse medical treatment in advance?
A: Yes. Following the 2018 Common Cause judgment, Indian citizens can draft a living will (Advance Directive), stating their refusal of life support if they become terminally ill and are incapable of making decisions in the future.
