Euthanasia and Right to die Laws in India

"Marte hain aarzoo mein marne ki

Maut aati hai par nahin aati"

-Mirza Ghalib

Table of Content

Introduction
Types of Euthanasia
Indian Perspective
Legal Framework in India
Effect of Euthanasia
Supreme Court Judgements on Euthanasia in India
The Debate on Euthanasia
Conclusion

Abstract

Euthanasia is still a divisive and complex topic with social, legal, and ethical implications. The Indian Penal Code's prohibitions on suicide and aiding and abetting suicide, as well as important Supreme Court rulings, have greatly altered the legal status of euthanasia in the country. This article explores the complexities of euthanasia in India, looking at the legal system, ethical discussions, and changing perceptions on the right to die with dignity. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code makes attempting suicide illegal, while Section 306 makes aiding and abetting suicide a crime. The legal framework for euthanasia is made more complex by these clauses, especially for active euthanasia, which is still prohibited and requires taking direct action to end life. On the other hand, under certain circumstances, the practice of passive euthanasia—which entails turning off life support—has received legal approval. The Indian Supreme Court has been instrumental in establishing the permissible limits on euthanasia. The Indian Constitution's Article 21—which guarantees the right to die with dignity—was recognized in the historic Aruna Shanbaug case of 2011 when it approved passive euthanasia under stringent guidelines. The Supreme Court's decision in the Common Cause case (2018) advanced the legal debate by legalizing living wills and upholding the legitimacy of passive euthanasia. By stating their choices for medical care in the event of incapacitation, people can ensure that their end-of-life care is in accordance with their wishes through the use of a living will, also known as an advance directive. The ruling highlighted the basic right under Article 21 to a dignified death and included comprehensive instructions for carrying out living wills and passive euthanasia. The sanctity of life and individual autonomy are balanced in the ethical discussions surrounding euthanasia. Advocates contend that people need to have the freedom to select a dignified demise, especially when facing a terminal illness and excruciating pain. They stress the value of quality and compassion. They stress empathy and the value of preserving one's quality of life rather than just extending one's life. On the other hand, detractors contend that assisted suicide diminishes the inherent worth of life and may give rise to misuses. Instead of permitting euthanasia, they urge better palliative care and assistance for people who are in distress. In terms of society, the discussion involves religious and cultural views, as many customs preserve life's sacredness. Legalizing euthanasia contradicts these ingrained convictions and prompts worries about the social ramifications, such as the possible breakdown of patient-physician trust.

Introduction

To die with dignity, to die in peace, to have a quiet exit and to avoid unnecessary sufferings people want to die. This rings true for those facing deadly sickness or crippling health issues. Euthanasia offers a peek at a world where these wishes come true. The word euthanasia has been derived from two Greek words ‘eu’ meaning ‘good’ and ‘thanatos’ meaning ‘death’. It was coined in the early 17th century by the English philosopher Sir Francis Bacon. It means ending someone’s life for a good reason. People who hurt for a long time from an illness with no cure might see death as their only way out. Doctors call it 'euthanasia' when they end the life of a very sick person to stop their pain. It gives a quick and respectful death instead of a slow painful one. Put another way, it's killing a very sick person on purpose. The reason for this killing is kind - to free the sick person from terrible pain. 'Mercy killing' is another name for euthanasia. It means ending someone's life on purpose to stop their pain. This act sits where medical rules human rights, and laws meet. The talk about euthanasia isn't just about living or dying. It's about how well we live, our freedom to choose, and how far doctors should go to help. Prominent philosopher Peter Singer once said, "Choosing to end your life has logic and morals behind it. It shows respect for a person's free will and self-worth." This view backs up the idea that folks should get to pick when they're done suffering. But not everyone agrees. Pope John Paul II, for instance, fired back, "Ending a life on purpose goes against God's rules. It's killing a human, plain and simple, and that's not okay." These clashing ideas show just how heated and complex the fight over euthanasia can get when it comes to ethics and morals.

Types of euthanasia (assisted suicide)

Depending on how a patient's life is ended, there are several types of euthanasia. Such as:

Both passive and active euthanasia

'Aggressive' euthanasia a.k.a active euthanasia. In this, the patient's suffering is actively ended. This might happen by a fatal medication injection. It is a contentious approach with a lot of fiercely contested religious, moral, ethical, and humane aspects. The deliberate taking of a patient's life by not providing them with life-sustaining care is known as passive euthanasia. A feeding tube or ventilator are examples of life support systems that are purposefully removed in such a situation.

Voluntary and involuntary euthanasia

The patient gives their agreement for voluntary euthanasia. The act of administering involuntary euthanasia occurs without the patient's permission. Taking it a step further, it might be genuinely "involuntary," which means the patient does not want it, or "non-voluntary," which means the patient does not want it but is unable to express their wishes, as in coma situations.

Self-administered and other administered euthanasia

When a patient chooses to end their own life, this is known as self-administered euthanasia, whereas the practice of administering the means of death by someone other than the patient such as a doctor or a close relative is known as "other-administered euthanasia."

Assisted euthanasia

It is called ‘assisted euthanasia’ when the patient himself/herself administers the means of death, but with the assistance of another person like the doctor.

Indian Perspective

India is a land of diversity with a vast of cultures, religions and language. People of different religions have been occupying the territory for ages now. Consequently, the opinions concerning life and death the fundamental concept of euthanasia, is different among the different religions. Islam and Christianity nurture life as a precious gift from Allah or Jesus. Therefore, it should by no means be eliminated at all costs. Thus, since life is sacred, both religions are against euthanasia, and life cannot be taken by man that is a sin against the eternal laws. When it comes to the eternal laws of life and religion for Hindus than it is regulated by Vedas, Upanishads, Smritis, Shrutis and Puranas. These texts seem to endorse suicide disguised as what they require is the liberation of the self. Manusmriti a Hindu text says that suicide or self-liberation is lawful in situations where the disease is untreatable for the purpose of being acquitted. Hindu religion believe in doctrines like moksha and re incarnation. It speaks about death, what becomes of the soul and where it goes to take up a new body . some of its concepts include fasting till death so as to attain freedom of soul. But, it supports self liberation only if one has achieved all the goal or objectives of life. Thus, if the person is critically ill and he or she cannot recover, it is permissible to provide the individual with euthanasia. The ideological structure of Buddhism and Jainism is also similar in the sense that both these religions permit suicide to certain extent.

Legal Framework in India

Article 21 of Indian constitution deals with protection of life and personal liberty it states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” According to Supreme Court of India, right to die with dignity also comes under Article 21 of Indian constitution which also consists of right to die with dignifying procedure. This means that, in some cases, people suffering from terminal illness or indeed in a persistent vegetative state can get passive euthanasia whereby a doctor pulls off a plug on the patient. Only passive euthanasia which is withdrawal of medical treatment including removal of life support system is allowed under Article 21 while active euthanasia which means administering a lethal dose which is fatal is unlawful and punishable under Section 304 IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The main provisions of the Indian Penal Code concerning the discussion of euthanasia include suicide and abetting suicide. These sections have a bearing on how the law in India stands on euthanasia.

Section 309 of IPC :

Attempt to commit suicide — “Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall he punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both”. In section 309, the attempt to commit the act of suicide is prohibited. This provision aligns itself to the classical utilitarianism which frowns on the taking of life. Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, states that a person attempting suicide shall not be prosecuted but Section 309 still exist in the IPC. Since attempted suicide is a criminal offense, it alters the view and admissibility of euthanasia since it confirms the government’s policy on sanctity of life.

Section 306: Abetment of Suicide

Section 306 of the IPC states: "If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." This rule talks about aiding suicide, making it a punishable act. When it comes to euthanasia, this part raises important questions about what role medical pros, families, & others play in helping end someone's life. If a patient asks for help in dying, those who agree might get in trouble under this rule for abetment, which makes the legality of euthanasia complicated.

Effect on Euthanasia

The provisions in the IPC about suicide and abetment have big impacts on the legal status of euthanasia in India:

Making Assisted Death a Crime:

The IPC's view on aiding suicide creates a big legal roadblock for active euthanasia. Helping someone die, even if they agree, can be seen as abetment and is punishable under Section 306. This basically makes active euthanasia a criminal act.

Legal Confusion:

Even though the Mental Healthcare Act tries to decriminalize suicide tries, having Section 309 shows a lack of consistency in the law. This confusion makes talking about euthanasia hard, especially when it comes to its legal status and ethical reasons.

Decisions by Supreme Court:

The SC of India had some key decisions in cases like Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India & Ors and Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India that give important views on these IPC rules. The Aruna Shanbaug case allowed passive euthanasia if strict rules are followed, recognizing the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Common Cause decision also said passive euthanasia is legal and that living wills are okay according to the SC, setting guidelines for passive euthanasia despite what the IPC says.

Supreme Court Judgements on Euthanasia in India

The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in influencing the legal framework of euthanasia with its significant judgments. Particularly, the cases of Aruna Shanbaug (2011) and Common Cause (2018) have been instrumental in defining the right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and establishing guidelines for passive euthanasia.

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs Union Of India & Ors (2011)

Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, remained in a vegetative state for more than 37 years post an assault in 1973. In 2011, journalist Pinki Virani filed a petition seeking permission for euthanasia on Aruna's behalf.

In a ground breaking decision, the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia with specific limitations. The key points of the ruling were:

1. Approval of Passive Euthanasia:

o The Court acknowledged the permissibility of passive euthanasia, allowing for the withdrawal of life support in certain situations.

2. Establishment of Guidelines:

o Specific guidelines for passive euthanasia were outlined by the Court, including:

§ High Court authorization after a thorough assessment.

§ Evaluation of the patient's condition by a panel of doctors appointed by the High Court.

§ Consent from the patient's family or close relatives.

3. Dignified End of Life:

o Article 21's interpretation by the Court encompassed the right to die with dignity.

The ruling was significant by providing a legal structure for passive euthanasia, while active euthanasia remained prohibited. It also laid the foundation for further legal progress on the matter.

Common Cause vs Union Of India (2018)

Common Cause, a non-governmental organization, filed a public interest litigation seeking acknowledgment of the right to die with dignity and the legalization of living wills for terminally ill individuals.

Ruling:

In a historic verdict in 2018, the Supreme Court acknowledged the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21. Key aspects of the ruling included:

1. Validation of Living Wills:

o Legalization of living wills, permitting individuals to express their medical treatment preferences in the event of terminal illness and incapacity to make decisions. The court embrace the idea of a living will. This is a written document in which the patient has been instructed in advance that when he is seriously ill and unable to give consent, if medical experts say there is no life, he should be passively offered euthanasia

2. Advance Directives:

o Precise guidelines were provided for executing and honouring living wills and advance directives by medical professionals.

3. Reaffirmation of Passive Euthanasia:

o The Court reiterated the legality of passive euthanasia and offered detailed guidelines, including certification by a medical board and High Court approval.

4. Dignified End of Life:

o Emphasis was placed on Article 21, reinforcing the right to die with dignity, thereby solidifying the legal basis for passive euthanasia and living wills.

This ruling was a significant stride in Indian legislation, recognizing individual autonomy in end-of-life decisions. It established a clear legal framework for passive euthanasia and living wills to uphold individual rights and dignity.

The Debate on Euthanasia

There are numerous arguments in favour of and against euthanasia, a practice that has caused great controversy worldwide. While opponents contend that execution raises ethical questions due to the possibility of abuse, coercion, and wrongdoing in the face of dangerous circumstances, supporters of euthanasia assert that it can be a compassionate way to end the suffering of chronic diseases and that people have the right to make their own decisions and choose their fate. These discussions address a wide range of topics, including social, legal, and ethical ones.

Freedom vs. Life's Sanctity:

Advocates of Euthanasia:

Those who support people's right to autonomy and self-determination—including the option to end one's life in order to relieve excruciating pain—think that euthanasia demonstrates respect for personal autonomy and human dignity

Anti-euthanasia:

Proponents argue that life has intrinsic value and ought to be protected. They contend that the sanctity of life is destroyed by execution and that it can create a slippery slope since it lowers the worth of human life.

Caring versus Moral Obligation:

Euthanasia proponents stress compassion and contend that the terminally ill can pass away with dignity and without needless suffering. Opponents of euthanasia contend that it is morally right to treat the sick and defenseless rather than take their lives. It's thought that with the right treatment, suffering can end without the need for euthanasia.

Natural death vs. a good life:

Proponents of euthanasia stress the value of a high quality of life, contending that a life marked by agony and suffering is devoid of dignity and purpose. It is thought that execution can spare people from suffering for a very long time. Euthanasia opponents contend that all lives, no matter how they are spent, have inherent worth. They contend that social pressure to choose death over life may be exerted on vulnerable people if execution is accepted.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate over euthanasia should embrace compassion. The discussion around euthanasia is fundamentally human in nature rather than merely legal or medical. It prompts us to consider what it means to pass away with honour. By recognizing living wills and permitting passive euthanasia, the Indian Supreme Court has made great progress toward granting individuals some autonomy over their final decisions. This discussion compels us to strike a compromise between our compassion for easing suffering and our reverence for life. It involves figuring out how to respect personal preferences while defending the weaker members of society. Building a society that values the right to a dignified, peaceful death as well as the sanctity of life is the goal of the voyage.

While we continue to work through this intricate problem, let us not overlook the significance of empathy. We can make sure that our laws reflect a balance between ethics and compassion by encouraging candid conversations and understanding, which will open the door to a more compassionate approach to end-of-life care.