Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty subject to procedure established by law.[1] Every individual has an inherent and inalienable right to live life to the full extent. However, there are certain circumstances in which an individual may wish to terminate his/her own life. A person can end life in ways like; Suicide, Voluntary Death, Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), Passive Euthanasia, or Active Euthanasia.
Suicide by its very nature is the act of self-killing or an act of terminating one’s own life without the aid or assistance of any other human agency. Euthanasia, on the other hand, involves the intervention of other human agency to end the life. Euthanasia is one of the most perplexing issues faced by Courts and legislatures all over the world. In India, Euthanasia has been a debatable topic that raises the complex question of the life and death of a person.
Meaning & Extent
Euthanasia (Mercy Killing) is derived from the Greek roots eu meaning ‘well’ or ‘good’ and thanatos meaning “good death”. In common terms “euthanasia” means the act or practice of putting to death painlessly, especially to release a man from incurable suffering. Euthanasia is popularly taken to mean any form of termination of life by a doctor at the express request of the patient. It must be explicit, voluntary, and carefully considered. Also, doctors have to take the Hippocratic Oath that binds them to try everything possible in the power to save their patients.
Classification
Euthanasia can be further categorized into various types:
- Active Euthanasia: This involves the use of lethal substances or forces to terminate the life of a person.
- Passive Euthanasia: This involves withdrawing medical treatment with a deliberate intention of causing a person’s death.
- Voluntary Euthanasia: When the consent is taken from the patient for the termination of his/her life, it is voluntary euthanasia.
- Non-voluntary Euthanasia: When the consent is unavailable or is otherwise unable to give consent, it is non-voluntary euthanasia.
Moral & Legal Dimensions of Euthanasia in India: Cases, Issues, and Validity
We live in a country where ethics, human rights, and morality are of vital importance. We are developed and progressed to the extent that the preservation of human life is of paramount importance and deliberately ending the life of a person can be a major step. The question arises in the context of a dying man, who is either terminally ill or in a persistent vegetative state; firstly can he end his life early, and secondly will the person who assists him to do so, be held criminally responsible for causing his death.
The opinion however is divided into complex question of the life and death of a person. No consensus has emerged in opposing the right of the state to regulate the involvement of others in exercising power over an individual’s freedom to end one’s life. There have been many instances in the past questioning the legality of euthanasia and the right to die.
Initially, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Kumar v. State of Punjab,[2] held that the “right to life” guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the “right to die”. The Apex Court dismissed the petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Overruling the decision of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court given in P. Rathinam v. Union of India,[3]Section 309 (attempt to commit suicide) of IPC, 1860 was challenged on the ground of being violative of Article 21. It was held that the right to life was a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and therefore, “incompetent and inconsistent” with the concept of life. Hence, Section 309 was held unconstitutional and violative of Article 21.The Apex Court said, “It is a cruel and irrational provision violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.” Expanding the scope of Article 21, the court upheld that ‘the right to life’ includes ‘the right not to live a forced life’ i.e. to end one’s life if one so desires. The Court also referred to the 42nd Report (1971) of the Law Commission,[4] which said Section 309 is harsh and unjustifiable and should be repealed.
In India, attempt to suicide is no longer an offence in itself, any person who aids, abets counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term which may extend to 14 years. Under section 306 (Abetment of suicide) of the IPC, physician assisted suicide is a crime. Euthanasia is nothing but homicide, and unless specifically exempted it is an offence.
In the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India,[5] a writ petition under Article 32[6] was filed in 2009 by Ms. Pinki Virani, a journalist, on behalf of petitioner Aruna Shanbaug. Shanbaug, a nurse at KEM Hospital, was attacked on November 27, 1973, by a sweeper who assaulted and sodomized her and strangled a dog chain to immobilize her. The next morning, she was found unconscious with severe injuries, including brain damage and spinal injury. After 36 years, at the age of 60, she suffered from severe physical deterioration. She was in a permanent vegetative state for years that led to numerous health issues, including brittle bones, bed sores, decayed teeth, virtually dead brain, leaving her in a state of near death. The prayer of the petitioner was that the hospital shall be directed to stop feeding her and let her die peacefully.
The respondent pleaded in the court to reject the allowance of practice of euthanasia, saying that terminating Ms. Shanbaug’s life would be immoral and inhuman since she has a right to live and she herself could not consent to such a decision. On the other hand, the petitioner argued that Article 21 includes the right to die with utmost dignity, asserting that those in a permanent vegetative state should have the option to end their suffering and that ceasing care of Ms. Shanbaug, who was virtually dead, would not be killing her.
The Supreme Court in its judgment distinguished active and passive euthanasia. Active euthanasia means the deliberate termination of one’s life by administering lethal substance or force. In India, active euthanasia is illegal and is murder under section 302, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 of the IPC, 1860. Whereas, passive euthanasia is withdrawing medical treatment with a deliberate intention of causing a person’s death. The apex court provided proper procedure and guidelines for passive euthanasia in the “rarest of rare cases”, thereby rejecting the petition. It was held that the High Court, under Article 226, could decide on life support withdrawal. A bench formed by CJI would consult a committee of three reputed doctors to thoroughly examine the patient, and issue notice to the state and family before delivering a prompt decision.
In Common Cause v. Union of India,[7]laying down a set of guidelines for a purpose, recognized the individual’s choice to live. In the landmark verdict, the Court empowered an individual to decide his fate, in case, he slips into an irrevocable comatose state. The Court said, “The individual can draft a living will and his relatives and doctors will be obliged to execute his option for death”. The Apex Court also recognised the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and prescribed guidelines for terminally ill patients to enforce the right.
Euthanasia is legal in countries like Belgium, Luxembourg, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, the Netherlands, and Colombia, but illegal in Luxembourg, France, Australia, the United Kingdom, Norway, and New Zealand.[8]
Conclusion
In India, euthanasia represents a balance between the protection of life and the right to die with dignity. Over the years, there have been various judicial opinions regarding the legality and ethical considerations of euthanasia. The legal recognition of passive euthanasia reflects a gradual shift towards respecting personal autonomy. The sanctity of life remains paramount in cases involving terminally ill patients or individuals in a persistent vegetative state who experience significant pain and suffering with no prospects of recovery. In the absence of specific legislation, passive euthanasia and its application must be regulated properly. It should adhere strictly to certain criteria including patient autonomy, the patient’s capacity to make informed decisions, and complete transparency from medical professionals from those who are involved. Euthanasia should be considered only as a remaining last resort, exercised with compassion in the form of mercy.
[1] Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950
[2] Gian Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1995) 6 SCC 516
[3] P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394
[4] Law Commission of India Report, Fifth Law Commission, 1971 2022082456.pdf (s3waas.gov.in)
[5] Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454
[6] Article 32, The Constitution of India 1950
[7] Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1
[8] Spain passes law allowing euthanasia (bbc.com)
Author: Disha Patil, 4th year BBA LLB student.
