Mercy or Morality? The Euthanasia Debate in India


Author: Yashasvi Maharshi, RGNUL


Morality or mercy? Deeply ingrained cultural and religious views are intertwined with complicated ethical, legal, and sociological issues in India’s euthanasia debate. Euthanasia, which comes from the Greek words “eu” (good) and “thanatos” (death), is the deliberate taking of a person’s life in order to alleviate their suffering. India’s stance on euthanasia has changed dramatically, especially in the wake of historic court rulings and a rise in support for personal liberty and dignity.

The Indian Constitution’s Article 21 guarantees citizens the right to life and personal freedom, which has been widely construed to include the right to a dignified existence. The Supreme Court denied the argument for active euthanasia in the seminal case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011), but permitted passive euthanasia with certain restrictions. According to that ruling, passive euthanasia is the act of removing the only support or medical intervention that keeps a person alive, enabling them to pass away naturally. This ruling prompted the creation of comprehensive standards, one of which is that a high court bench’s approval must be obtained prior to removing life support. The difference between active and passive euthanasia is still important because active euthanasia, which is prohibited by Section 302 (punishment for murder) and Section 304 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), entails a positive act to end life, such as giving a lethal injection. Even if it is legal, procedural measures should be in place to prevent abuse of passive euthanasia.

The case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India in 2018 broadened further the jurisprudence on euthanasia by establishing that the right to die with dignity forms part of article 21 itself. The landmark judgment held the living will and advance medical directives to be valid, empowering persons to make an articulation of choices regarding end-of-life care on the eve of a situation where the person might be incapacitated. The court further stated procedural conditions of execution of such orders so that personal autonomy is preserved but at the same time guarded against misuse.
So, an ethical justification for euthanasia suggests autonomy versus beneficence on one hand and abuse potential and social ramifications on the other. Advocates claim that the individuals with untreatable, debilitating illnesses deserve the right to have death with dignity rather than suffering pain for long periods. This view accords with the doctrine of autonomy, wherein self-determination concerning one’s body is entitled to individual choice in making decisions.


However, the slippery slope would argue against it, citing potential danger through coercion or a degradation of human life, not to mention its potential misuse in a socio-economic setting where poverty and underdeveloped healthcare systems are dominant. Further, the religious and cultural fabric of India makes it even more complicated because most traditions view life as sacred and inviolable, irrespective of suffering. Palliative care and its availability have also emerged as a critical aspect, with advocates stressing the need to enhance access to pain relief and end-of-life care as a humane alternative to euthanasia. International practices on euthanasia are also highly diverse. In Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada, active euthanasia is legalized strictly. In the United States, however, some states allow physician-assisted suicide but acceptance remains patchy. The Indian legal framework draws lessons from the rest of the world but has been cautious and incremental in laying down procedural safeguards and judicial oversight. Thus, the euthanasia debate in India manages a sensitive balance between mercy and morality, individual rights, and societal values. Legal recognition of passive euthanasia and living wills is a step forward, but it also speaks of a need for stringent safeguards, increased palliative care, and greater societal awareness regarding the ethical and practical dimensions involved in this highly contentious issue.


Conclusion

As a result, the Indian euthanasia issue presents a complex web of moral, legal, and cultural factors as well as a changing culture that questions death, life, and dignity. In its seminal rulings in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) and Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court acknowledged that living wills and passive euthanasia are two of the best ways to grant a dying person autonomy and dignity. However, the strict procedural safeguards required to prevent misuse temper this gradual growth, ensuring that the sanctity of life remains a top priority. The jurisprudence on euthanasia highlights the very delicate balance that is to be maintained between self-determination as the rights of the individual and state interest in protecting life. The autonomy doctrine is the basis that provides a platform wherein the right to choosing a dignified death is vindicated, whereas societal and ethical concerns raise warnings against the eventuality of misusing this option, especially considering the socio-economic background and inequitable infrastructural facilities regarding healthcare.

Furthermore, the issue is inextricably linked to India’s rich religious and cultural culture, which upholds the sanctity of life. In this regard, society awareness and dialogue are required to align legal progress with public sensibilities. Additionally, palliative care access needs to be greatly increased in order to offer a compassionate substitute for euthanasia and effectively treat patients’ and their families’ complete range of suffering. India must carry out this process by creating a well-rounded strategy that respects both social values and individual dignity. An egalitarian and humane framework for end-of-life care will be determined by clear legislation, ethical medical practices, and educated public conversation.

FAQS


1. What are the key court rulings on euthanasia in India?
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): Allowed passive euthanasia under strict guidelines but denied active euthanasia.
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): Recognized the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21 of the Constitution and validated living wills and advance medical directives.


2. What is a living will?
A living will is a legal document that allows individuals to specify their preferences for end-of-life medical care if they become incapacitated and unable to communicate their decisions.


3. What are the ethical arguments for euthanasia?
Proponents argue that euthanasia:
Respects individual autonomy and self-determination.
Provides a dignified death for individuals with untreatable or debilitating conditions.
Reduces prolonged suffering.


4. What are the concerns against euthanasia?
Opponents highlight:
The risk of misuse, especially in socio-economic contexts with underdeveloped healthcare systems.
The potential for coercion or abuse in vulnerable populations.
Ethical and cultural values that uphold the sanctity of life.


5. What role does religion and culture play in the euthanasia debate in India?
India’s rich cultural and religious traditions often view life as sacred and inviolable, regardless of suffering. These beliefs complicate societal acceptance of euthanasia.

Leave a Reply

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