THE RIGHT TO DEATH: MORALITY VS. LEGALITY

ABSTRACT

This article delves into the complex and difficult issue of the right to die, examining its moral and legal elements in the context of euthanasia. It begins with the stunning thought of a constitutional right to select one’s dying moments before navigating the complexities of euthanasia and examines its global and Indian settings. The moral argument encompasses ethical, theological, and cultural aspects, particularly in Hinduism and Buddhism. Concerns about possible misuse, the impact on vulnerable people, and the formation of a death culture are discussed. The worldwide and Indian legal discourses are being studied, with an emphasis on the developing nature of the right to die and the necessity for comprehensive legislation. The conclusion emphasizes the issue’s complexities, suggesting a balanced approach that respects individual autonomy while guarding against exploitation and prioritizing empathetic dialogue. In summary, the paper argues for a future that values human life and dignity via careful legal and moral reasoning.

Introduction

To imagine that we have a right granted by the constitution to decide the final moments of our lives is both startling and terrifying. Death, in no way, must be brought by human interference. In some exceptional cases where the person is experiencing a difficulty in living either due to a certain terminal condition of theirs, or due to an excruciating pain and suffrage as a result of the same, one may wonder whether death might be the answer, given that there is no other alternative to put an end to the suffrage. The right to death does not necessarily mean the process of assisting in someone’s passing away. It also includes a refusal of the requisite treatment or procedure for prolonging life, on one’s own free will and consent. It is rooted in the belief that individuals must have the autonomy to both life and death (in exceptional situations). The right to life being granted in some or the other way includes the right to death with dignity as well. The right to death is surrounded by many debates about the moral, ethical, religious, and legal implications. In this article, the moral and legal debates would be delved deeper into and the implications of the same would be examined. 

Euthanasia and the Right to Death

The Right to death usually involves the intentional action of a medical practitioner to end the suffering of the patient with the latter’s free will and consent. This is usually done through euthanasia. Euthanasia as a term means “good death”¹. It is of two types based on the way it is performed, active and passive. The former involves injecting or introducing foreign elements into the body to aid in the death whereas the latter involves ceasing life support aids or discontinuing of the requisite treatment.² Based on the consenting individual, it is again of two types, voluntary and involuntary. The former includes consent from the person who is willing to undergo euthanasia, whereas the latter involves consent from the patient’s guardian in cases where the patient himself is not in a position to consent for the same, and euthanasia is in his best interests. In the global context, currently, active euthanasia is legalized in New Zealand, Canada, Netherlands, Spain, Colombia, Luxembourg, Belgium & Australia³. In the Indian context, currently, active euthanasia is not legalized, but passive euthanasia is legalized. The Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of the Common Cause (A Registered Society) v Union of India (2018) made it clear that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian constitution also must include the right to death with dignity as well.⁴

Euthanasia and the right to death have a complicated relationship, entwining the domains of human autonomy, compassion, and the ethical issues surrounding end-of-life decisions. The right to death transcends the act of euthanasia, which is just one decision among many available options for ending one’s life. It summarizes the essential notion that people are entitled to write the story of their own lives, including when it comes to choosing how and when to pass away. This idea acknowledges that life preservation and quality are important aspects of human experience, particularly when people are faced with the harsh reality of chronic illnesses or other disorders that impair their general well-being. By granting people the right to death, communities recognize the complexity of end-of-life decisions and work to provide them with the moral and legal assistance they need to deal with them. 

The Moral debate 

The topic of euthanasia or the right to death has been an intensely debated issue across multiple cultures and regions, including India. The ethical acceptability of purposefully terminating someone’s life, the necessity of safeguards and controls, and the effects of allowing the right to death on society’s moral fabric are the main topics of discussion in the moral debate surrounding the right to death. In the global context, the moral aspects of euthanasia are debated under various legal, ethical, religious, and cultural frameworks. In some countries, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Australia, euthanasia is legal, with specific regulations and safeguards in place. However, in other countries, including the United States and many African and Asian countries, euthanasia is illegal, and is viewed as a violation of human rights and moral values. Religions and cultural traditions also play a role in shaping the moral aspects of the right to death with different perspectives on the morality of ending one’s life or the right to suffer. Both Hinduism and Buddhism, the two major religions in India, have strong ethical traditions that emphasize the sanctity of life. Within these theological frameworks, the concept of the right to die may be seen as a person’s decision to stop their own pain or their own suffering that they inflict upon themselves.

 According to the Hindu idea of atmanirbharna, or self-compounding, killing oneself is akin to sinning since it indicates a breach in the person’s moral bounds. It is important to remember that the idea does not outright forbid the practice of euthanasia for terminally ill patients since it is meant for individuals who have come to a morally acceptable compromise between the suffering they inflict and the pain they feel.⁵ Buddhism mainly opposes euthanasia and the right to death because it encourages the avoidance of needless suffering as well as the development of mindfulness and composure. Buddhism’s stance on euthanasia would probably center on bringing about inner peace and harmony as well as the reduction of suffering. Many argue that the sanctity of life is an inviolable principle that should guide moral decision-making, contending that intentionally ending a life is inherently ethically wrong. From this perspective, life is viewed as a sacred gift, and intervening to hasten death is seen as a violation of the moral duty to preserve life.

The possible effects on weaker people, such as those suffering from mental illness or disability, are among the most important moral concerns regarding the right to death. Some advocates for change contend that people with life-threatening illnesses should have the freedom to make their own decisions, while others contend that giving people the option to end their own life might force them to make decisions that are not in their best interests. Furthermore, the applicant’s quality of life and healthcare accessibility may have an impact on the moral discussion around their right to death. 

A further concern is the potential of the right to death to create a culture of death in which people are valued little or not at all and are seen as a burden or liability. Especially in the cases of family members who might opt for euthanasia quoting the right to death but with an underlying malafide intention⁶. Another concern is that people may be viewed as disposable in such a society, and medical professionals may be more concerned with conserving resources than with offering patients the emotional support and care they need as they near death. The financial burden associated with taking care of a terminally ill patient might force the people belonging to the lower strata of society to opt for euthanasia. They might view it as a means of escape and misuse it for their personal benefits. 

As societies grapple with these moral quandaries, the right to death becomes a crucible in which divergent ethical perspectives clash. The moral argument is not limited to academic arguments; it also encompasses the real-life experiences of those who must deal with the terrible facts of terminal disease. Every case turns into a moving story in which the highly personal accounts of people seeking autonomy and dignity in their last hours collide with the moral issues surrounding the right to death. 

The Legal Debate 

The legal debate surrounding the right to die is multifaceted and continues to change, influenced by ethical, cultural, and legal factors. The legal position of the right to die varies substantially on a worldwide basis, reflecting the varying viewpoints and values of different civilizations. This ongoing discussion provides vital insights into how various regimes balance individual autonomy and societal considerations.

 Personal autonomy – the belief that people should have control over their own lives and deaths – is emphasized by those in support of legalizing the right to die. They say that the option to die peacefully with medical aid is a fundamental human right for persons with terminal or incurable diseases. This perspective emphasizes the possibility of reducing pain for dying patients and the emotional strain on relatives.

 Opponents, on the other hand, have a few worries about the ramifications of legalizing assisted suicide. There are concerns regarding the possibility of misuse, particularly among vulnerable people. Will unwell or elderly people feel compelled to end their lives early if sufficient precautions are not in place? Could the right to die become an expectation rather than an option? Opponents also claim that this pulls the focus away from strengthening palliative care options. Some skeptics cite slippery slope concerns, implying that as time passes, qualifying requirements for assisted suicide may relax or grow. 

Around the globe, several nations have officially endorsed and put into effect several types of assisted death or euthanasia, with each having their own specific guidelines and precautions. Taking the lead is the Netherlands, which established the legalization of euthanasia in 2002 with strict criteria.⁷ Similarly, other nations including Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, and, more recently, certain regions of Australia and New Zealand⁸ , have also chosen to decriminalize assisted dying in diverse ways, indicating an acknowledgment of the individual’s self-governance in end-of-life choices. On the other hand, several nations have enacted stringent regulations against assisted dying. For example, in the United States, this topic is primarily tackled on a state level, with Oregon leading the way in 1997 with the groundbreaking Death with Dignity Act. This legislation grants patients with terminal illnesses the option to seek and obtain a prescription for ending their lives⁹, but not all states have followed suit. Likewise, the United Kingdom prohibits assisted suicide through the Suicide Act of 1961,¹⁰ Yet the conversation persists, as evidenced by sporadic legal challenges and open dialogue about revisions. 

Over the years, the Indian legal discourse surrounding the right to die has witnessed notable progress. This complex issue has been intricately tackled in accordance with the country’s diverse cultural and religious make-up. The concepts of euthanasia and assisted suicide, encompassed within the right to die, have been discussed in the judiciary and the legislature. In a monumental legal milestone, India saw a significant shift in 2018 with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, which deemed passive euthanasia legal. The ruling was a major win for human dignity, as it recognized the right of individuals to choose their own end of life care. It also permitted the creation of “living wills,” empowering individuals to decline medical treatment if they wished.¹¹ This groundbreaking judgment paved the way for the implementation of advance directives and laid out strict guidelines to safeguard the vulnerable while respecting the autonomy of individuals. The court also stressed the urgency for comprehensive legislation to fully address these complex matters and provide a solid legal framework for the right to die.

In India, a notable progress occurred with the presentation of the “Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill” in the Lok Sabha during 2021. This proposed legislation aims to establish guidelines for withholding or withdrawing medical care from those facing terminal illnesses, addressing complex issues surrounding euthanasia and the right to end one’s own life¹². Although still pending approval, the introduction of this bill marks a significant advancement towards establishing a legal framework for end-of-life choices in India. The discussion of the right to die in India is profoundly intertwined with cultural, religious, and societal concerns. With India’s heterogeneous population encompassing individuals from different religious beliefs, the legal dialogue becomes more intricate. Striking a balance between personal liberty and societal principles and ethics poses a significant challenge, mirroring the international conversation on this topic.

India’s legal landscape now recognizes the right to die with dignity, but the conversation rages on regarding the sufficiency of existing laws regarding euthanasia and assisted dying. The pressing demand for legislation that upholds individual autonomy, guards against exploitation, and safeguards vulnerable communities remains a key focus in this ongoing legal discourse. As the discussion on the right to die continues to gain momentum worldwide and particularly within India, it illuminates the nuanced intersection of law, ethics, and societal beliefs. The constantly evolving conversation highlights the diverse range of human experiences and the ongoing pursuit for a legal structure that approaches end-of-life choices with empathy, respect, and thoughtful consideration for the various viewpoints that shape our perceptions of mortality.

Conclusion

The issue of the right to die is a complex and emotionally charged topic that raises fundamental questions about the value of human life, the role of medical professionals, and the limits of individual autonomy. As societies grapple with this issue, it is essential to approach the debate with empathy, nuance, and a deep understanding of the ethical and legal considerations involved. At its core, this issue is about finding a balance between the right of individuals to control their own life and death, and the duty of society to protect vulnerable populations from exploitation and harm. It is a delicate dance that requires careful consideration of moral principles, legal precedents, and the subtle nuances of human experience.

The way forward involves crafting legislation that respects personal autonomy while instituting safeguards against abuse, improving access to palliative care as an alternative recourse, and engaging in open yet sensitive dialogue across ideological spectrum. By adopting a morally centered and legally judicious approach, we can create policies that affirm the dignity of human life while acknowledging the reality of mortal suffering. The right to die may remain an unresolved question, but with wisdom, compassion, and a commitment to ethical values, we can shape a future that values life and dignity for all.  

1.  Suresh Bada Math & Santosh K Chaturvedi, Euthanasia: Right to Life vs Right to Die, 136(6), Indian Journal of Medical Research, 899-900 (2012), <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3612319/> Accessed on 27^th December 2023. ↩︎
2.  Id. ↩︎
3. World population review, <https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/where-is-euthanasia-legal> Accessed on 29^th December 2023.. ↩︎
4. G.K Goswami & Siddhartha Goswami, Right to ‘Die With Dignity’: Analysis of ‘Common Cause V. Union of India’ (2018), 60(1), Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 97-98 (2010) 
   <https://www.jstor.org/stable/26826627> Accessed on 29^th December 2023. ↩︎
5. Vinod K Sinha et al., Euthanasia: An Indian Perspective, 54(2), Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 179-181 (2012) <https://doi.org/10.4103%2F0019-5545.99537> Accessed on 29^th December 2023.
   ↩︎
6. supra note 1.
   ↩︎
7. Ezekiel J Emanuel, Euthanasia: Where the Netherlands Leads Will the World Follow?, 322(7299), BMJ, 1376-1377 (2001) <https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.322.7299.1376> Accessed on 30^th December 2023.
   ↩︎
8. supra note 3. ↩︎
9. Fred Charatan, US Supreme Court Upholds Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, 332(7535) BMJ, 195 (2006), <https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fbmj.332.7535.195-a> Accessed o 30^th December 2023. ↩︎
10. NHS (July 12, 2023), <https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide/>. ↩︎
11. supra note 4. ↩︎
12. Surbhi Kapoor, Medical Treatment For Terminally Ill Patients’ Bill, 2016, iPleaders (June 30, 2016), <https://blog.ipleaders.in/medical-treatment-terminally-ill-patients-bill-2016/> Accessed on 30^th December 2023. ↩︎