Author-Rachi Chavan, Amity University,Mumbai
INTRODUCTION
Every human being is entitled to human rights provided under the Universal Declaration of Human rights (UDHR). The rights are cornerstone of ethical and legal framework, inherent dignity of every individual. Whereas, fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution of India specifically article 21 let an individual enjoy the right to life and right to die. Every aspect of this rights has been through various judicial scrutiny over the period of 75 years post-independence. Right to die is an interpreted right under Right to life. Thus so far, in the context of right to die, euthanasia is still a debatable topic. It poses a profound challenges to the right to life and human rights. At the heat of the debate, there lies a balance between both the rights and dignity of an individual. Euthanasia conscious ending of an individual’s life to reduce the suffering, raise morals, philosophical and legal questions which intersect with the rights enshrined in UDHR.
In this article, we articulate the complex intersection of right to life and right to die in the context of Euthanasia. Various definitions, Historical background, different types, comparison with various countries, legal precedents and various interpretations. We aim to provide a deeper understanding of this topic which reflects on legal and moral compass of life and death.
Keywords: Euthanasia, right to life, right to death, UDHR, fundamental rights, Article 21 etc.
DEFINITION
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “euthanasia is the act of causing or hastening the death of a person who is suffering from an incurable or terminal disease or condition especially a painful one, for reason for mercy.”
According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, “Euthanasia means the act or practise of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy. It can be also seen as ‘mercy killing.” According to this practice, the patient or an individual or any other person oh the patient’s behalf, chooses death for himself for the colossal reason of medical condition.
Euthanasia in simple terms means an act of ending an individuals’ life who is suffering from an incurable disease or in a situation where it is painful for an individual to stay alive. It common words, euthanasia means intentionally killing an individual who suffers from a painful disease by doing an act or omission of certain act.
EVOLUTION OF EUTHANASIA
‘It were better to die once and for all than to drag out my lingering days in anguish by Aeschylus (father of tragedy).
Euthanasia is a classified under Applied Ethics, a branch of Philosophy. Applied ethics were introduced in 1970s’, when the philosophical and political actors begun to look into topics such as, euthanasia, abortion, cloning, etc.
The words euthanasia is derived from two different words Greek origin “eu” and “Thanatos”, which in English means Euthanasia. It was prevalent in Greek society during the early period of renaissance. Greeks used to consider mercy killing or good death as an act of rationale, if an individual feel that the life is not useful. The increase in the advocacy of euthanasia throughout North America and European countries along with increasing awareness of human rights led to countries creating laws which penalized the suicide and abetment to suicide. Hence, Euthanasia was also declared unlawful.
Over the years, understanding of euthanasia evolved and words like mercy killings, assisted dying, death with dignity, painless death, peace attaining, etc. were referred.
COMPARISON WITH OTHER COUNTRIES
History has been witness to the evolution of Euthanasia, it has gain momentum many times throughout history and it almost attained legal validity. There was eccentric pattern of euthanasia followed in different countries. Switzerland had most recent amendment in 2021 when “suicide machine” an euthanasia machine which was coffin shape hence the name suicide machine, which can be operated and was legalized. Canada had legalized assisted suicide and euthanasia only in certain cases pertaining to factors such as physical conditions, mental conditions etc. which will ultimately led to an individuals’ death. In 2021 the scope was increased by considering the individuals sufferings from serious disability which will lead them to their death. Australia has four states in which euthanasia is legalised after 2017 and it was available to an individual who suffers from incurable and progressive disease and will die within one year. USA had legalized euthanasia in various states through judicial rulings and legislations. The process which is followed is a doctor has to write a prescription of the fatal drugs with the professional when the drugs are injected to the individuals. France had not legalised euthanasia as the bill was proposed in 2021 but palliative sedation is legal in France. In Netherlands assisted dying and euthanasia is legalised from individuals suffering from terminal illness and eventually die. In 2020 assisted dying was made legalised for children from the age of 1-12 years who are terminally ill.
TYPES / KINDS OF EUTHANASIA
- BASED ON METHOD USED:
Passive Euthanasia: when an individual is abstain from the medical treatment necessary for his survival. It means, the professional who provides care, do not do the act which is necessary or stop providing the treatment which is necessary to keep the patient alive. In simple terms, passive euthanasia is an act which can be contented as a doctors not actively killing the patient; they are simply not doing anything to save the patient.
Active Euthanasia: When medical personnel or anybody else purposefully performs a positive deed, like injecting a deadly dose of medication or overdosing the victim with medication, the victim dies a medicine would not have caused death if it weren’t for the overdose, which caused the victim to pass away such act is called active euthanasia.
- BASED ON CONSENT
Voluntary Euthanasia: The individual requests that euthanasia be carried out. The patient requests euthanasia verbally or in writing if they would rather die than live in agony. Thus, it is possible to carry out both passive and aggressive euthanasia upon voluntary request.
Involuntary Euthanasia: This kind of an individual is incapable of giving their consent for euthanasia. As a result, this approach covers scenarios including coma patients, brain dead people, etc.
Non-voluntary: In this case, an individual is making the decision to end their life is competent but does not consent to it. This is unquestionably direct homicide.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
In the constitution of India Article 21 as a fundamental is enshrined in Part III it has stated that every citizen has right to life along with rights such as right to privacy, right to dignity, right of autonomy, right to personal liberty etc. In fact, inclusion of right to die under article 21 was controversial and various case laws are proof of that, because sections such as section 306 and section 309 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 which has provisions which states that abetment to suicide or attempt is illegal and punishable offence under the code.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS RELATED TO EUTHANASIA:
ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG V. UNION OF INDIA
The landmark judgment in Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) by the Supreme Court of India significantly advanced the legal discourse surrounding passive euthanasia in the country. This case analysis explores the Court’s reasoning and its subsequent establishment of procedural guidelines for passive euthanasia applications.
Factual Background
Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse, was brutally attacked in the hospital where she worked, rendering her in a permanent vegetative state for 36 years. Ms. Pinki Virani, claiming to be Aruna’s friend, petitioned the Court on the grounds that Aruna’s right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was being violated due to her irreversible condition.
Court’s Reasoning and Decision
The Court meticulously evaluated the medical reports and the definition of brain death enshrined in the Human Organ Transplant Act, 1994. It concluded that Aruna was not brain dead, demonstrating residual brain function through her ability to breathe unassisted and respond to stimuli. Furthermore, the Court determined that Ms. Virani lacked the legal standing to make such a request on Aruna’s behalf, as the decision-making authority resided with the KEM Hospital staff responsible for her care.
While acknowledging the absence of hope for recovery, the Court distinguished between passive euthanasia (withdrawing life-sustaining treatment) and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration, which Indian law did not equate with euthanasia. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition for euthanasia in Aruna’s specific case.
Significance and Procedural Guidelines
Despite the denial of euthanasia in this instance, the Court’s judgment held immense significance. It undertook a comprehensive examination of passive euthanasia, ultimately establishing a detailed framework for future applications. This framework emphasizes stringent safeguards to prevent potential misuse.
The established procedure mandates the filing of an application by a competent individual. The relevant Chief Justice then constitutes a tribunal of at least two judges, empowered to authorize euthanasia orders. This tribunal must also consult a three-member medical committee chosen in consultation with relevant medical professionals. Following the committee’s appointment, the judicial commission issues notices to the state, the patient’s family (including parents, spouse, siblings, or friends in their absence), and accompanies these notices with the committee’s report. The final decision on granting euthanasia rests solely with the Supreme Court.
The Aruna Shanbaug case serves as a pivotal precedent in India’s legal landscape on passive euthanasia. The Court’s meticulous analysis and the subsequent creation of procedural guidelines offer a much-needed framework for navigating these complex and sensitive situations.
MARUTI SHRIPATI DUBAL V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Factual Background
A police officer, suffering from a documented history of mental illness including schizophrenia, depression, and instability, attempted suicide by self-immolation. He was subsequently charged under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempting to take his own life.
Legal Issue
The Bombay High Court challenged the constitutionality of Section 309 of the IPC, raising the question of whether criminalizing attempted suicide violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court held that Section 309 was unconstitutional for the following reasons:
Violation of Article 19: The right to life under Article 19 encompasses a negative aspect, as recognized in precedents like Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1962), and Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1980). This right encompasses personal liberty and the protection of life itself.
Interconnectedness of Articles 19 and 21: Articles 19 and 21 are to be interpreted together and in relation to each other.
Violation of Article 14: Section 309 lacks a legal definition of “suicide,” leading to ambiguity. The concept carries varying interpretations across different groups, with some cultures even praising certain forms of suicide. The Court further distinguished between ending one’s life “unnaturally” and due to the exhaustion of the will to live. The latter, the Court reasoned, could not be considered unnatural but rather an act of life arising from specific circumstances.
The Court declared Section 309 unconstitutional due to its violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner were dismissed, and he was acquitted of the charge under Section 309.
GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB
Factual information
Gian Kaur and her husband were found guilty of assisting their daughter’s suicide and were convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court sentenced them to six years in prison and a fine of Rs. 2,000, with an additional nine months of imprisonment if the fine couldn’t be paid. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the High Court, which upheld the conviction but reduced the prison sentence to three years.
Issues raised
The main issues before the court were whether Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is constitutionally valid and whether Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India observed that the ‘right to life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution does not include the ‘right to die’. The court emphasized that the right to life also encompasses the right to live with dignity until death, and this should be accompanied by a natural and worthy dying process. The court made it clear that the ‘right to die’ with dignity at the end of one’s life should not be confused with an unnatural ‘right to die’. It held that any action that accelerates a person’s natural death is unlawful under Section 21. The Supreme Court also addressed the constitutionality of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and ruled that both attempted suicide and assisted suicide are punishable. The court stated that this provision serves to minimize the inherent risk associated with the absence of such a law, considering the greater good of society.
Furthermore, in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), the court repealed the provisions of Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, thereby affirming their constitutionality and holding the accused liable for abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court concluded that Article 21, which pertains to the ‘right to life’, does not include the ‘right to die’. The arguments based on Article 14 of the Indian Constitution were found to be inconsistent with the main issues of the case.
DOCTRINES RELATED TO EUTHANASIA IN INDIA
- Doctrine of Parens Patriae: This doctrine states that, the state has right to intervene to protect the rights of an individuals who cannot make decisions for themselves. This doctrine is used for cases of euthanasia where the patients are unable to make the decisions for themselves.
- Doctrine of Medical Ethics: Medical Council of India has provided medical ethics under four category that are principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. These medical ethics makes sure that medical professional are unbiased and makes decisions which has best interest of patient.
- Living will Doctrine: Living wills are document which stated the wishes of an individual regarding ending their lives under medical treatment. It is recognised by Supreme Court of India in 2018.
- Doctrine of Sanctity of Life: This doctrines is based on religious and moral compass which upholds the value of life and its sanctity. It therefore, opposed the assisted dying or terminating lives of human beings on the ground that it disturbs and violated the sanctity of life.
Maxims
- Volenti non fit injuria: “the one who is willing, no harm is done” it means that if the patients is willing then no harm is caused to him.
- Salus aegroti suprema lex: “welfare of the patients is the highest law” it simply means whatever that is in the best interest of patient shall be considered legal and just.
- Actus curiae neminem gravabit: “the act of court shall prejudice no one” it means that the court shall be unbiased and impartial while making decisions for the cases of euthanasia.
FUTURE IMPLICATIONS IF EUTHANASIA IS LEGALISED [NEGATIVES]
If euthanasia is legalised in India the impact of such act can be more of negative than positive as majority of human tendency is to seek benefit for ourselves than others. Hence, the consequences can be negative than positive. Some of them are: Corruption as many professionals can be of corrupt nature and hence can authorise euthanasia in return of money, Child killing foe example children who has some disability or disease which need to be taken care for can be victims of euthanasia, Organ selling is one of the biggest racket on going in India hence, euthanasia will only help it grow, Dowry deaths, mischiefs by any relative for some property, female child killings, high death rate of Senior citizens, etc.
CONCLUSION & COMMENTS
In conclusion, the euthanasia has quite a legal battle ongoing which is deeply rooted by the principles of various fields such as ethics, morals, law, philosophical etc. Throughout historical judgements we can see that culture and legal system have grappled with the complexities of the euthanasia, while some individuals choose the rights to life some individuals choose right to die. Though many arguments and contentions were placed before various high court and Supreme Court we still do not have proper legislation for euthanasia but in the near future we can have a proper legal guidelines, laws and implementations of such laws.
REFERENCES
- Online sources
- AC.IN
- SCC ONLINE.COM
- COM
- IPLEADERS BLOGS.COM
- LEGAL SERVICES INDIA.COM
- RESEARCH GATE.COM
- Sources Referred
- NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE: EUTHANASIA: AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE
- CENTER FOR LAW & POLICY RESEARCH: EUTHANASIA AND THE RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA
- VERYWELL HEALTH: EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE HAVE IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONS
- Cases Referred
- ARUNA SHANBAUG V. UNION OF INDIA (2011)
- GIAN KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB (1996)
- COMMON CAUSE V. UNION OF INDIA (2014)
- CHANDRAKAMT NAYANROA TANDALE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2020)
- B. KARIBASAMMA V. UNION OF INDIA (2012)
- Statutes Referred
- CONSTITUION OF INDIA
- INDIAN PENAL CODE
- CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- THANSPLANTATION OF HUMAN ORGANS ACT
- UNIVERSAL DECLARATIO OF HUMAN RIGHTS
- INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL’S ACT