Exploring Whether the Right to Die with Dignity Constitutes a Fundamental Right in India

Admin

2 weeks ago

Author: Shalini Shukla, S.S. Khanna Girls’ Degree College a Constituent College of the University of Allahabad

Abstract: Every human life has value. The choice to either continue or halt medical treatment or life support for someone facing a terminal illness, or for those who are sadly in a comatose or persistent vegetative state, is referred to as the right to die. This concept emphasizes the importance of making end-of-life decisions on one’s own terms. In India, active euthanasia is not legally recognized. However, the Indian Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to passive euthanasia, allowing individuals to die with dignity, is considered a fundamental right. This article examines how the Supreme Court of India recognized that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The role of the judiciary in expanding the scope of Article 21 has also been discussed in this article.
Keywords: Right to die with dignity, Article 21 of the Constitution, Euthanasia. Supreme Court decisions on the right to die.

Introduction: Article 21 of the Constitution says that “no person shall be deprived of his right life and personal liberty except the procedure established by the law” Part III of the Constitution of India talks about the Fundamental rights of the people of India. The procedure established by law means that the law is only valid if it was enacted through proper procedure. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, 1978, SC, it is a landmark case on the right to life. The Supreme Court held that procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable. This case overruled the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras, 1950, SC. The phrase “procedure established by law” was borrowed from Japan’s Constitution. The right to life is fundamental under Article 21 of the Constitution. Initially, the right to life does not include the right to die with dignity. But the Supreme Court of India in 2018 in the case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. UOI recognized the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right in India. In India, only passive euthanasia is allowed under strict Supreme Court guidelines, but active euthanasia is prohibited. The right to die with dignity is a significant concern for many individuals suffering from terminal illnesses. This right is encompassed within the concept of “euthanasia”.

Right to die with dignity: The right to die with dignity is a deeply debated ethical, legal, and humanitarian issue worldwide. It refers to an individual’s right to end their life in a humane and painless manner, particularly in cases of terminal illness, extreme suffering, or irreversible medical conditions. This right is often associated with the concept of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, raising complex moral and legal questions. While some view it as a compassionate choice that honors personal autonomy, others argue it contradicts ethical and religious beliefs. The right to die with dignity implies that a person should not be forced to endure unbearable pain or suffering due to a terminal illness or an incurable condition. It is based on the principle of autonomy, which allows individuals to make decisions about their own lives, including the manner and timing of their death.

Euthanasia: Euthanasia, commonly referred to as mercy killing, is the practice of intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve them from severe suffering due to an incurable or terminal illness. It is a highly debated ethical and legal issue that raises fundamental questions about human rights, medical ethics, and the sanctity of life. Advocates of euthanasia argue that individuals should have the autonomy to decide when and how they die, especially when faced with unbearable pain and no hope of recovery. They believe that forcing a person to endure prolonged suffering is inhumane and that euthanasia provides a compassionate and dignified end to life. Euthanasia under the right to die is a deeply sensitive issue that touches on human dignity, medical ethics, and legal principles. While it provides a means for individuals to end unbearable suffering, it also raises concerns about potential abuse, moral dilemmas, and the role of medicine in preserving life.

Types of Euthanasia: There are two types of Euthanasia these are as follows:

Active Euthanasia: This occurs when a doctor deliberately ends a terminally ill patient’s life by administering a lethal dose of medication to alleviate their suffering.
Passive Euthanasia: Passive Euthanasia involves withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, allowing the patient to die.

Tracing the history of the Supreme Court’s stance on the right to die with dignity:

The Supreme Court’s stance on the right to die with dignity has evolved over time, balancing individual autonomy and state interests.

There are some cases related to the right to die –

In the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India, 1994, SC, the Supreme Court held that the right to life under auricle 21 also includes the right to die.
In the case of Gain Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1996, SC, A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court overruled P. Rathinam v. Union of India,1994, and held that the right to life under article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die.
In the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011, SC, was a landmark Supreme Court case in India that legalized passive euthanasia. The case was filed by activist-journalist Pinki Virani on behalf of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, a woman who was in a permanent vegetative state.
In the case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, 2018, SC, the Supreme Court of India recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The landmark judgment upheld the validity of passive euthanasia and introduced legally binding Advance Medical Directives (Living Wills), allowing individuals to specify their medical treatment preferences in case of terminal illness or incapacitation. The Court emphasized personal autonomy and dignity while laying down safeguards to prevent misuse. It overruled earlier precedents, such as Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), which had allowed passive euthanasia only under strict judicial oversight. This ruling was a significant step in expanding end-of-life rights in India, ensuring that individuals could refuse prolonged medical intervention if they were in a persistent vegetative state or suffering from an incurable condition, thus reinforcing the constitutional principle of dignity in death.

In 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right and set guidelines for its application by terminally ill patients. In 2023, the Court revised these guidelines to enhance accessibility and ensure that the right to die with dignity could be more easily exercised.

Recently Karnataka government made a pivotal decision regarding life and death following the Supreme Court’s ruling that the right to die with dignity is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. In response, Karnataka established a legal framework to facilitate passive euthanasia for terminally ill patients. The Supreme Court’s 2023 order enables patients to choose a natural death by withdrawing life-saving treatment, building on the 2018 Common Cause case that recognized passive euthanasia and living wills. State of Karnataka become 1st State in India to fully implement the right to die with dignity. The decision was made in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling that the right to die with dignity is part of the right to life.
Comment:

In my opinion, recognizing the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is correct. The right to die with dignity, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is a significant extension of the right to life and personal liberty. I believe that dignity is a core aspect of human existence, and when an individual is faced with a terminal illness or unbearable suffering, they should have the autonomy to make decisions about their own life and death. The right to die with dignity is not just about choosing to end one’s life, but rather about being able to exit life with respect and without prolonged suffering. Upholding this right reflects the fundamental principle that personal dignity and choice are paramount in a free society. Therefore, I support this interpretation of Article 21, as it empowers individuals to make decisions that align with their values and well-being, especially in the face of unbearable conditions.

Conclusion:

I concluded that recognizing the right to die with dignity under Article 21 upholds the principles of personal autonomy and human dignity. It allows individuals facing terminal suffering to make choices that align with their values, ensuring that death is a process conducted with respect, compassion, and individual freedom.

FAQs:

Is the right to die with dignity a fundamental right?

Ans: Yes, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

What is passive euthanasia?

Ans: Passive euthanasia involves the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment, allowing a patient to die naturally without artificial intervention.

When did the Supreme Court recognize the right to die with dignity?

Ans: The Supreme Court recognized the right to die with dignity in the 2018 Common Cause case, which also legalized passive euthanasia and living wills.

References:

Statute: The Constitution India, 1950.