EUTHANASIA: RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY

INTRODUCTION TO EUTHANASIA 

Every person aspires to live a good, meaningful life, and they work tirelessly to do so. Along with living well, people also want to pass away gracefully rather than suffer through a slow, agonizing death from disease. People want to pass away easily and peacefully. Nobody wants to live in a world where being alive is worse than dying. When someone purposefully takes their own life, it is called suicide. Euthanasia, also known as mercy killing, is when a person’s life is terminated by another with that person’s agreement. Due to the constant technological improvement in science and medicine, the topic of euthanasia has recently come under more and more scrutiny.

Euthanasia also referred to as “mercy killing,¹” is sending someone with a physically debilitating illness or agonizing, incurable disease to death without any pain, or by delaying medical care or turning off artificial life support, ultimately dying. 

. It is typically viewed as either suicide (if committed by the patient himself) or murder (if committed by someone) because there is typically no explicit legal provision for it. However, doctors are legally allowed to opt not to prolong life in situations of great suffering, and they are allowed to give patients painkillers even if doing so causes the patient’s life to be cut short. 

For many years, euthanasia has been a topic of discussion across the globe. On the basis of humanitarian considerations, many sophisticated nations have supported the idea that people who suffer from chronic diseases and occasionally lose their dignity deserve mercy and should be permitted to have

If he/she wants, a peaceful passing. If there is no chance of survival, the victims are kept artificially alive by placing them on ventilators or other life support systems for at least a few days, months, or years. There comes a time when having to choose between continuing to live and dying is too painful and burdensome. Death would be a merciful relief from suffering and loss of human dignity.

MEANING AND TYPES OF EUTHANASIA

The term euthanasia was derived from two Greek words “eu” and “thanatos”. “Eu” means good and “thanatos” means death. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the definition of euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.

Further, it can be classified into various types:

1. Active or positive Euthanasia: When a patient is intentionally put to death by a medical practitioner or another individual, this is known as active euthanasia.

2. Passive or negative Euthanasia: When a patient dies as a result of passive euthanasia, it is because the medical staff either neglected to do something that would have kept the patient alive or stopped doing something that was keeping the patient alive.

• turn off all life-support systems and remove a feeding tube
• avoid doing a life-extending procedure.
• Give no life-extending medications

3. Voluntary Euthanasia: When euthanasia is carried out with the patient’s express choice and permission, it is voluntary. The main issue with voluntary euthanasia is the terminally ill patient’s option to terminate his or her life, a decision that is in the patient’s best interest as well as the interests of everyone else.

4. Involuntary Euthanasia: It is where the patient is put to death without having expressed a desire to do so. It refers to situations in which a competent patient’s life is taken away against the will of that patient, who opposes euthanasia and would unmistakably qualify as murder in certain situations.

5. Non-voluntary Euthanasia: It refers to taking the life of someone who is incapable of making an informed decision to end their own life, as a comatose patient. In non-voluntary euthanasia, the patient has not provided any advance directives or written a living will because he may not have had the chance to do so or may not have foreseen any such accident or circumstance. In cases of non-voluntary euthanasia, the decision is frequently made by family members.

The patient’s wish to die or live his life, as well as his capacity to consent to this mercy killing in accordance with national law, and whether he is of sound mind to voluntarily offer his assent, are the major factors used to classify patients. 

CASE LAWS RELATED TO EUTHANASIA AND HOW IT CHANGED THE LEGISLATIONS

The Bombay High Court made a distinction between suicide and euthanasia in the case of Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharastra² by stating that suicide is an act of self-killing without assistance from any other person, whereas euthanasia requires the intervention of some other person to end the life. Euthanasia and mercy killing cannot be compared to suicide. In this particular case, the court further said that:

Regardless of the circumstances, mercy killing or euthanasia is still homicide. Unless clearly excluded, it is always unlawful. In addition to punishing aiding murder, our penal code also sanctions aiding suicide. In India, the legislation regarding assisted suicide is unambiguous, and suicide is criminal under the India Penal Code, 1860 under sections 305, 306, and 309, which are, respectively, assisting a minor or an insane person to commit suicide, as well as assisting suicide and suicide attempts. 

After, the Supreme Court of India approved passive euthanasia in India in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India². In Common Cause (a regd. society) vs. Union of India & Anr³, the Supreme Court declared that a person’s “right to die with dignity” is a basic right and acknowledged that terminally ill people had the legal right to make a “living will.”

In the case of State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia⁴, the Delhi High Court stated that there is no reason for section 309 of the I.P.C. to be on the books. In Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra⁵, the Bombay High Court declared section 309 to be in violation of articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. In this instance, it was determined that section 309 was arbitrarily applied, had a discriminatory aspect, and violated the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

In this case, the court further construed Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, holding that it also encompasses the right to death. As a result, the court determined that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code also violates Article 21.

In the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India⁶, the Supreme Court for the first time decided whether the right to life under Article 21 also includes the freedom to die.

CURRENT STATUS OF EUTHANASIA IN INDIA

The Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia in 2018 in a landmark decision, citing the concept of a “living will”. The decision allows an adult who is of sound mind to freely choose not to receive medical care in order to embrace death in specific situations in a natural way. It also established rules for “living wills” signed by terminally ill individuals who are aware of the likelihood that they will enter a permanent vegetative state.

Article 21 of the Constitution was referenced by the court as saying “Dignity in the process of dying is as much a part of the right to life under Article 21. To deprive an individual of dignity towards the end of life is to deprive the individual of a meaningful existence.”

CHALLENGES FACED

Euthanasia poses several challenges that contribute to the ongoing debate and ethical dilemmas surrounding the topic. Some of the key challenges include:

1. Ethics and Morality: Euthanasia raises complex ethical and moral questions. Determining when it is appropriate to intentionally end a person’s life is a deeply subjective matter, with differing views on the value of human life, the right to die, and the responsibilities of healthcare professionals.

2. Legal and Regulatory Issues: Legalizing euthanasia involves navigating intricate legal frameworks. Developing clear and comprehensive legislation that safeguards against abuse, protects vulnerable populations, and provides guidelines for implementation can be challenging.

3. Consent and Decision-Making: Ensuring informed consent and the capacity to make end-of-life decisions can be difficult. Determining whether a person is making a voluntary and rational choice to pursue euthanasia, particularly in cases involving severe illness, mental health conditions, or vulnerable individuals, raises significant ethical concerns.

4. Medical Ethics and Professional Roles: Euthanasia places healthcare professionals in complex ethical dilemmas. The role of doctors and medical practitioners in administering euthanasia, weighing their duty to preserve life with respect for patient autonomy, can create tension and moral conflicts within the medical community.

5. Palliative Care and End-of-Life Alternatives: Critics argue that the focus should be on improving palliative care and end-of-life support, rather than legalizing euthanasia. Access to high-quality pain management, hospice care, psychological support, and other end-of-life options may help alleviate suffering and provide alternatives to euthanasia.

6. Slippery Slope and Safeguards: Critics raise concerns about the potential for a slippery slope effect if euthanasia is legalized. They worry that the criteria for eligibility might expand beyond terminal illness or unbearable suffering, leading to involuntary euthanasia or the devaluation of certain lives.

7. Cultural and Religious Perspectives: Euthanasia debates are influenced by cultural and religious beliefs, which vary widely around the world. Different societies and religious traditions have divergent views on the sanctity of life, the moral implications of euthanasia, and the role of suffering in the human experience.

CONCLUSION 

In conclusion, euthanasia presents a multitude of challenges that make it a complex and contentious issue. The ethical, legal, medical, and societal dimensions involved create significant dilemmas and disagreements. Determining the appropriateness and regulation of euthanasia requires navigating questions of individual autonomy, the sanctity of life, informed consent, and the potential for abuse. There is no easy or universally accepted conclusion on euthanasia. It is an ongoing and evolving debate that requires careful consideration and respect for diverse perspectives. Society must grapple with finding the right balance between compassion for those suffering, protecting vulnerable individuals, and upholding ethical and moral principles.

1. Mercy killing: a quick or painless demise, or the deliberate taking of life at the request of a person with a difficult or terminal illness. ↩︎
2. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India WP Crl No. 115 of 2009 ↩︎
3. Common Cause (a regd. society) vs. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 5 SCC 1, AIR 2018 SC 1665 ↩︎
4. State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia 1986 (10) DRJ 31 ↩︎
5. Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra 1987 (1) BomCR 499, (1986) 88 BOMLR 589 ↩︎
6. P. Rathinam v. Union of India 1994 AIR 1844, 1994 SCC (3) 394 ↩︎