Author: Niranjan Erat, a second-year student at NUALS
ABSTRACT
Euthanasia, the deliberate act of ending a person’s life to relieve suffering, has been a topic of extensive debate globally. This legal essay explores the concept of Euthanasia and its types in a detailed manner and delves into the legal landscape of euthanasia in contemporary India, legislative developments, ethical considerations, and the arguments in support of Euthanasia as well as arguments opposing Euthanasia in contemporary India.
WHAT IS EUTHANASIA?
The word ‘Euthanasia’ has its roots in the Greek language, based on a combination of the terms eu meaning “well” and thanatos meaning “death”. The term ‘Euthanasia’ was coined by the English Philosopher Sir Francis Bacon early in the 17th Century. Euthanasia is defined as the administration of a lethal agent by a physician to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient’s incurable suffering. Some people refer to Euthanasia as ‘mercy killing’ too.
This article is divided into three parts. The first part explores what Euthanasia is and the types of Euthanasia. The second part deals with the legislative framework dealing with Euthanasia in India and the final part presents arguments for and against Euthanasia.
TYPES OF EUTHANASIA
Active Euthanasia
Active euthanasia most usually involves a fatal injection or the deliberate ingestion of a lethal combination of medications, which indicates that a person’s death was brought about by outside action as opposed to natural causes. It is when a doctor intentionally takes steps to end a patient’s life.
Active Euthanasia can be classified into two types:
Voluntary Euthanasia: It is when the person makes the decision to have their life terminated to avoid further suffering.
Non-Voluntary Euthanasia: Non-voluntary euthanasia happens when the decision to put a person to death is made by someone else because the person who has to be killed is unable to do so..
Passive Euthanasia
When a person is deliberately denied treatment that would keep them alive, it is considered passive euthanasia.
Passive Euthanasia can be brought about by either withholding or withdrawing treatment.
Withholding treatment: This would mean not providing treatment that the person needs for survival. For example: not carrying out a surgery that is required to sustain a person’s life.
Withdrawing treatment: This would mean turning off medical equipment/machines without which the person would not be able to sustain his/her life.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
As of now, there are no laws governing Euthanasia in India. Active Euthanasia is illegal in India and is punishable. The doctors who caused Euthanasia came under the purview of Exception 5 of Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaha Sanhita since they had the requisite ‘intention’ of causing the death of the concerned patient. The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India in 2011 gave a significant boost to the legalization of passive euthanasia in India.
ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG v. UNION OF INDIA, 2011
Aruna Shanbaug, the petitioner in this case, was brutally attacked by a hospital sweeper while working as a nurse, leaving her in a vegetative condition for 36 years. As the petitioner had no prospect of recovery, Ms. Pinki Virani, who claimed to be a friend of hers, submitted the petition on her behalf She sought the court’s decision on the petitioner’s right to die under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court concluded that Aruna was not brain dead and had the ability to breathe independently and respond to stimuli. The responsibility of determining the course of action for Aruna rested with the staff of KEM Hospital rather than Pinki Virani. Thus, the court rejected the petition but allowed KEM Hospital to conduct Passive Euthanasia.
Subsequently, after conducting an extensive review of passive euthanasia, the court established guidelines. To prevent any malicious intent in terminating a person’s life, the high courts have been given the final decision-making power. The process begins with a petitioner submitting an application to the Chief Justice of the corresponding high court. It is the Chief Justice’s responsibility to establish a bench consisting of at least two judges who will be responsible for granting the euthanasia order. The bench should also consult with a committee of three doctors nominated by them after consulting with necessary doctors and medical professionals. After completing this process, the final judgment will be made in the high court.
LIVING WILLS/ADVANCED MEDICAL DIRECTIVE(AMD), IN INDIA
How can someone ensure their right to choose to peacefully pass away if they do not wish to remain in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery or a meaningful life? One potential solution is an Advanced Medical Directive (AMD), which guarantees that even if someone is unable to articulate their desires, they can still have a voice in whether or not their life is terminated. An advanced medical directive is a legally binding document that outlines an individual’s preferences regarding medical treatment in the event of incapacity or inability to communicate.
The Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India and Anr case, 2018 affirmed the importance of Advance Medical Directives as a mechanism for ensuring that individuals have control over their medical treatment and end-of-life decisions. A society called Common Cause filed a petition to declare the right to die with dignity as inherent in the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petition also requested the implementation of procedures for individuals in deteriorating health to create Advance Medical Directives. The Court recognized the acceptance of Advance Medical Directives and living wills in the country and stated that it protects the right to self-determination and bodily integrity. If a patient cannot make an informed decision, a guardian can make a ‘best-interest’ decision on their behalf.
PRO-EUTHANASIA ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENT ONE: QUALITY OF LIFE
The “quality of life” argument suggests that there are situations where euthanasia may be morally justifiable due to a poor quality of life. This could apply to individuals in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) or those with terminal illnesses. If a person’s quality of life is so poor that they would be better off dead, then euthanasia may be a consideration. It’s important to recognize that individuals in a PVS are not just immobile but lack the unique psychological traits of the average human being. This understanding may impact the ethical justification for euthanasia in such cases.
ARGUMENT TWO: CAREGIVER’S BURDEN
Advocates of Euthanasia argue that individuals who suffer from an incurable, degenerative, disabling, or debilitating condition should have the right to die with dignity. This argument is also extended to those with chronic debilitating illnesses, even if they are not terminal, such as severe mental illness. The burden on caregivers in assisted dying cases is immense, and requests for euthanasia often come from family members of those with psychiatric illnesses. The state’s lack of investment in healthcare is a mockery of the right to life. Allocating resources to PVS patients may not be justified if their quality of life is significantly diminished. Euthanasia requests from patients with poor quality of life may allow resources to be redirected to others in need.
ARGUMENT THREE: PERSONAL AUTONOMY
The third reason for supporting assisted suicide is personal autonomy, the idea that everyone has the right to make their own decisions and control their own lives. Philosopher John Stuart Mill supported this idea, suggesting that government intervention in a person’s life should only be to prevent harm to others. Therefore, voluntary euthanasia is ethically acceptable if we believe in individual autonomy and the right to act as one sees fit, as long as it doesn’t harm others.
ANTI-EUTHANASIA ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENT ONE: SANCTITY OF LIFE
The argument against euthanasia is rooted in the Sanctity of Life principle, often based on religious beliefs. This principle holds that life is inherently valuable and must be preserved at all times, regardless of quality of life. It is a deontological ethical stance, emphasizing the duty to avoid killing. Mother Teresa linked this view to both abortion and euthanasia.
ARGUMENT TWO: SLIPPERY SLOPE
The objection to legalizing euthanasia is that it may lead to morally undesirable situations despite its initial legalization under specific circumstances. This could result in morally indefensible euthanasia practices, even if the intention behind it was moral. Allowing non-voluntary euthanasia can set a precedent that may pressure individuals to end their lives, leading to a slippery slope of morally unjustifiable practices.
ARGUMENT THREE: OBJECTION FROM MODERN TREATMENT
The modern medical treatments pose a fourth challenge to euthanasia. Proponents argue that euthanizing terminally ill or persistent vegetative state (PVS) patients would deny them the chance to find a cure and benefit from future medical advances.The progress in palliative care has raised questions about the need for euthanasia. With improved expertise, healthcare providers can manage pain and symptoms without resorting to euthanasia. Many argue that it is not a justifiable option in modern healthcare.
CONCLUSION
After the Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug case, India’s legal system has acknowledged the possibility of passive euthanasia. However, ongoing discussions about living wills and the lack of comprehensive legislation reveal a country grappling with the profound questions surrounding life, death, and individual autonomy. The landscape of euthanasia in modern India is complex, influenced by a nuanced interplay of legal, ethical, and societal factors. India has the chance to take the lead in developing a thorough and compassionate legal system that honors a varied society’s values in the future.
FAQs
Q: Is euthanasia legal in India?
A: Passive euthanasia is legal in India under specific circumstances, as per the Supreme Court’s guidelines. However, active euthanasia remains illegal and punishable under Indian law.
Q: Is there a specific law on euthanasia in India?
A: Currently, there is no specific legislation governing euthanasia in India. The practice is regulated through Supreme Court guidelines and judgments.
Q: What is the process for requesting passive euthanasia in India?
A: The process involves filing a petition with the Chief Justice of the relevant High Court. A bench of at least two judges will consider the request, consulting with a committee of doctors and notifying relevant parties before making a decision.
