Euthanasia: Examining the Right to Die with Dignity

“I’m not afraid of being dead. I’m just afraid of what you might have to go through to get there.”– Pamela Bone

The idea that people have the right to terminate their lives with dignity is known as the right to die, often known as the right to voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. This approach frequently goes hand in hand with the concept of “death with dignity”, which supports the individual’s right to choose their own end-of-life decisions. The legality & morality of the right to die remains a controversial topic in many countries around the world, with different countries & regions having different laws and regulations regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide.

HISTORY

The well-known historian N.D.A. Kemp analyses the history of euthanasia. He asserts that the present debate about euthanasia started in 1870. The issue has been discussed and practiced for a very long time before that. Euthanasia was used in ancient Greece and Rome.¹ On the Greek island of Kea, hemlock, a deadly herb, was used to hasten death, as it was in Marseilles. Greek thinkers Socrates and Plato supported euthanasia, but Hippocrates opposed it. He was against any method that would cause someone to die. It is important to note that both Judaism and Christianity prohibit euthanasia. During the Age of Enlightenment, Protestantism promoted euthanasia and suicide, both of which were commonly practiced. These principles are universally recognized and accepted by all cultures, although they may be viewed differently depending on the context. While some may consider them to be sins, others celebrate acts of courage when they occur. These principles are easily distinguishable from one another. In the early 19th century, this expression began to refer to the act of hastening death and ending lives that were deemed to be meaningless. The term “euthanasia” is commonly understood to refer to intentionally ending the life of a person who is terminally ill. Some people believe in the right to die, while others oppose euthanasia on moral, ethical, and legal grounds, viewing it as a form of homicide. In complex situations, it can be challenging to distinguish between homicide and murder. Interestingly, in ancient India, suicide was not considered unusual.

In Hindu mythology, Lord Rama’s suicide is referred to as Jal Samadhi. During the time of Lord Buddha, it was referred to as Maharparinirvaan. The same thing happened to Lord Mahaveer. Prayopavesa became a way of life for Acharya Vinoba Bhave and Swatantra Veer Savarkar. Translation: “resolving to die through fasting.” Gandhi also encouraged intentional homicide. Such academics advocated for gentle means of passing away. In Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism, wilful dying is accepted. The concept has a philosophical basis. It discusses the eternal cycle of life and death as well as atonement. According to these schools of thinking, life should end after the intended purpose of birth has been achieved. Hindu saint Dnyaneshwar perished after completing his task. The existence of a right to die was thus previously demonstrated. Western religions have traditionally seen euthanasia as an improper exercise of divine authority. Since the fifth century B.C., Christians have held the view that everyone is dependent on the people who helped bring them into this world for their basic life. God created life with birth and death as natural occurrences. No human being can choose when or how they will die; thus, mankind should honor them. Islam forbids both assisted suicide and euthanasia because it does not accept any kind of justification for murder.

EUTHANASIA

The word ‘Euthanasia’ is derived from the Greek word “euthanatos” which means “well death” or “to die well”.² As it is wisely observed, life and death are not in our control. The ability to give birth and terminate the life of a person is in the hands of Nature.

There is a desire to terminate one’s life, nevertheless, when living becomes more agonizing than dying. When a person is focused to end their life due to a fatal or incurable illness, it is referred to as euthanasia. This practice of purposely ending someone’s life to eliminate their suffering is referred to as euthanasia.

Euthanasia comes in two factors: elective and involuntary. Involuntary euthanasia happens when someone else ends a patient’s life without the patient’s agreement, whereas voluntary euthanasia happens when a person chooses to terminate their life voluntarily.

Euthanasia is a complicated topic of discussion. Euthanasia supporters contend that it can lessen the suffering of those who are suffering from a terminal illness or excruciating agony. They say that it is a decent and compassionate approach to terminate someone’s suffering and may be considered a manner of honoring their autonomy and dignity.

 However, many who are opposed to euthanasia contend that it is unethical and breaches the sanctity of life. They contend that euthanasia might result in abuse and exploitation when weak people are forced or under duress to terminate their lives.

 Euthanasia is not lawful in every country. Euthanasia is permitted in several nations, including Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, subject to specific restrictions.

 There have been discussions in recent years about the morality of euthanasia, particularly about the use of assisted suicide. This practice has been made legal in several nations, but it is still debatable because of the possibility of misuse or compulsion, which worries many people.

LEGALITY OF EUTHANASIA

India

India is a contentious country when it comes to the right to die or voluntary euthanasia. Every person is guaranteed the right to life under the Indian Constitution; still, it isn’t made clear if this also includes the right to death. Aruna Shanbaug³, a nurse who had been in a vegetative condition 42 times, brought attention to the right-to-die contestation in India in 2011. Her story generated a civil discussion about the ethical and moral ramifications of euthanasia as well as the right to die.  The” Passive Euthanasia and Living Will” rules, which were issued by the Indian government in 2018, let terminally ill people decline medical care or life support if they’re in an unrecoverable condition or a vegetative state. The rules also permit the termination of medical care if it’s determined to be ineffective. These recommendations were grounded on the Supreme Court of India’s major ruling in the Aruna Shanbaug case, which allowed unresistant euthanasia in certain circumstances.  Active euthanasia, on the other hand, is still banned in India and includes designedly giving a case a fatal drug to end their life. According to the Indian Penal Code, helping or encouraging self-murder is a crime that’s penalized by imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Australia

In 1996, the Northern Territory of Australia passed the Rights of the Terminally III Act, which made it the first place to legalize voluntary active euthanasia. Though the validity of the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court of Northern Territory in Wake V. Northern Territory of Australia⁴ a posterior civil indigenous challenge to the legislation had succeeded. The Federal Parliament of Australia latterly passed the Euthanasia Laws Act, 1997 repealing the Northern Territory legislation.

England

In England, following a series of opinions of the House of Lords, it’s now settled that a person has the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment as part of his rights of autonomy and tone- determination. The House of Lords has also permitted non-voluntary euthanasia in case of cases in a patient vegetative state⁵ also, in a recent decision, a British High Court has granted a woman paralyzed by the neck, the right to die by having her life support system switched off.⁶

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the Passive Euthanasia and Living Will guidelines constitutes a huge step forward in enabling terminally ill patients to make end-of-life decisions with dignity and respect.

 If we talk about India, then the precedents of the landmark judgments given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically stated that Article 21 of the constitution of India defines⁷, Protection of life and personal liberty and provides a fundamental right to live life with dignity and as the arguments presented before the court that as the right to life includes right to sleep, right eat food, right to privacy, etc. so, it also includes right to die or end one’s life with dignity. But the judgment given by the Supreme Court based on the Natural law system stated that, as to give life and to take life is the process of Nature and so no one has a right to give or to take anyone’s life, as it is also clearly defined in Article 21 of Indian Constitution that, “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty expect according to procedure established by law.” This article is interpreted by the Judiciary as the people being provided with the fundamental right to live life with dignity, but under the procedure that is established by the law of the land that is India.

On the above examination, we can say that, as per the Indian Judicial review, Euthanasia that is right to Death is not a need for the hour, hence we did not assume that it is included in Article 21 of the Constitution with the theory of “Right to life” because as per the procedural laws established in India, stated in Indian Penal Code as a Criminal activity.

1. Himanshu Tripathi and Zuna Parween, Euthanasia JCLJ (2022) 531,532-533 (2022). ↩︎
2. Shreyans Kasliwal, Should Euthanasia be Legalised in India? PL WebJour 16 (2003). ↩︎
3. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454. ↩︎
4. Kumar Amarasekara, Euthanasia and the quality of Legislative Safeguards, (1997) 23 Mon LR 2. ↩︎
5. Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland, (1993) 1 All ER 821. ↩︎
6. The Hindustan Times, New Delhi, March 23, 2002, at p. 1. ↩︎
7. Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ↩︎