Open Access Research Article
EUTHANASIA AND THE RIGHT TO DIE: LEGAL AND MORAL DEBATES IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
EUTHANASIA AND THE RIGHT TO DIE:
LEGAL AND MORAL DEBATES IN INDIA
AUTHORED BY - VITTORIA GAUTAM PAL
BBA LLB (H)
IILM University, Gurugram
Abstract
Euthanasia is complicated and
controversial. It contains countless ethical, moral and legal aspects. The term
comes from the Greek. The Greek word means "mercy killing" and refers
to the act of deliberately ending life in order to relieve pain and suffering.
In India, this topic has sparked intensive debate influenced by cultural,
religious and moral beliefs. Discourse revolves around the role of the state in
individual autonomy, the sanctity of life, and the regulation of death.
Introduction
This paper aims to examine the legal history
of euthanasia in India, its current relevance, suggestions for improvement, and
critical analysis of ongoing debate.
Types of Euthanasia
?
Active Euthanasia: It involves
deliberately administering a deadly substance or taking direct action to hasten
demise, typically under medical supervision. It is a felony under sure
situations in international locations like the Netherlands and Belgium.
?
Passive Euthanasia: involves retreating or
refusing life-assist remedies, leading to natural death (e.g., disposing of
ventilators or feeding tubes).
?
Voluntary Euthanasia: occurs when a person of
sound mind presents express consent to end their life. Canada and Colombia have
legalized voluntary euthanasia, with Canada’s excellent court decriminalizing
medical doctor-assisted demise in the
Carter vs. Canada (2015).
?
Non-voluntary Euthanasia: Applies whilst someone
cannot deliver consent due to mental disability (e.g., coma). own family
members or criminal guardians make the choice. It remains arguable due to
autonomy worries. The Netherlands permits non-voluntary euthanasia for infants,
while Belgium permits it for minors under particular situations.
Legal History
Traditionally, numerous
cultures considered suicide and euthanasia as honourable or important under
precise circumstances. In ancient Rome, Norse, and Viking cultures, suicide was
visible as a dignified act in certain situations. Eastern samurais practiced “seppuku[1]”
to restore honour or compensate for failure. In ancient Sparta, publicity
involved forsaking infants or elderly people deemed not worthy to live on. A
few Inuit, Aboriginal Australian, and historical Chinese language communities
abandoned elderly participants at some stage in times of severe shortage.
In India, Jain practitioners
sometimes finished Sallekhana, a voluntary act to loss of life, as a religious
practice. In the components of Tamil Nadu, Thalaikoothal [2],
an unlawful shape of involuntary euthanasia for the aged, has been practiced as
a shape of mercy killing. Despite these ancient practices, most modern
societies focus on shielding and being concerned for vulnerable populations.
The felony trajectory of euthanasia
in India has developed drastically. The landmark case of Aruna Shanbaug v.
Union of India[3] marked a
turning point, where the preferred court allowed passive euthanasia under
strict conditions. The judgment identified the right to die with dignity under
Article 21 of the Indian charter. Sooner or later, in 2018, the Supreme Court
legalized passive euthanasia and introduced pointers for living wills,
reaffirming an individual's right to refuse medical remedy.
In India, the abetment of suicide and
attempted suicide are criminal offences under IPC Sections 306 and 309. The
constitutional validity of IPC Section 309 became challenged in 1994, in which
the preferred court first ruled it unconstitutional under Article 21 (right to
life). However, in 1996, the courtroom clarified that the right to life does
not encompass the right to die. The judgment emphasized that individuals
attempting suicide require assistance in preference to punishment and
encouraged the repeal of Section 309.
Present Relevance
Euthanasia remains an
essential issue in modern-day India, in particular inside the context of terminal
ailments, healthcare expenses, and patients' rights. regardless of the prison
popularity of passive euthanasia, there are worries concerning its
implementation, public recognition, and misuse. The COVID-19 pandemic has in
addition highlighted the moral dilemmas surrounding end-of-existence care.
Public discourse continues to shape the evolving narrative of euthanasia in
India.
The legality of
euthanasia in India is a contentious problem, mainly regarding its alignment
with Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which ensures the safety of life
and personal liberty. over the years, the judiciary has accelerated Article
21’s scope to consist of the right to live with dignity, refuse medical
treatment, and die with dignity.
Active euthanasia remains
prohibited, however the debate persists. The case of Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse in
a chronic vegetative state for 42 years, delivered the problem to national
interest. In 2011, the ideally suited courtroom recognized passive euthanasia,
allowing it on a case-by-case basis with high courtroom approval. However,
Aruna did not qualify under the ruling as she had not been declared brain-dead.
Within the 1996 case of
Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab[4], the
court ruled that the right to existence does not encompass the right to die,
rejecting euthanasia as an essential right. However, it mentioned that the
existence assists in certain conditions could be justified to keep human
dignity.
Case Law
Facts of the case:
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug
used to work as a nurse at the King Edward Memorial sanatorium in Mumbai. On
November 27, 1973, she become attacked through a sanatorium purifier who choked
and strangled her with a canine chain to save her from resisting a rape try.
When the attacker realised that Aruna had changed into menstruating, he
sexually assaulted her.
The next day, on November
28, 1973, Aruna was found unconscious at the ground with blood all around her.
A cleaner observed her in vegetative state. The strangulation had reduced the
oxygen to her mind, inflicting excessive harm to the cortex and a contusion
inside the mind stem, in conjunction with an injury to the cervical cord.
In 2009, after 36 years
since the incident, a friend of Aruna filed a petition under Article 32 of the
Indian charter. For a majority of these years, Aruna had been in a ‘permanent
Vegetative state,’ not able to move her limbs and reliant on mashed food. She
became dependent on the KEM sanatorium in Mumbai for her care.
Court- Appointed Medical Doctor’s
Findings:
In reaction to the
petition, KEM sanatorium and Bombay Municipal business enterprise filed a
counter-petition, leading to disagreements among the two parties. To further
understand the state of affairs, the supreme court appointed a group of three
experienced doctors to analyse and provide a report on Aruna Shanbaug’s
intellectual and physical condition.
The doctors studied her
complete clinical records and concluded that her brain was not dead. She
exhibited a unique manner of information and reacting to conditions.
Additionally, her frame language did not advocate any desire to stop her life.
The nursing body of workers additionally showed diligence in taking care of
her. As a result, the court docket believed that euthanasia was not essential
in this situation.
Issues Raised:
The problems raised in Aruna Shanbaug
vs Union of India are:
?
Must the withdrawal of life-sustaining systems and manner for a
person who is in a vegetative state (PVS) be permissible?
?
Does a person’s family or subsequent pal have the authority/ right
to seek the withholding or elimination of existence-supporting measures if the
individual has not made any such request already?
?
Whether or not Aruna Shanbaug be declared dead?
?
Must the right to Die fall within Article 21 of the Constitution?
?
Whether sections 306 and 309 of IPC are constitutionally
legitimate?
?
Need to euthanasia be approved and what felony issues revolve
around it?
Petitioner’s Arguments:
A journalist and activist, Ms. Pinki
Virani[5], filed a
petition under Article 32 of the Indian constitution in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India, declaring
that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 encompasses the right to Die
with dignity[6]. She
argued that people facing terminal ailments or permanent vegetative situations
ought to have the proper to end their lives with dignity, alleviating prolonged
struggling.
Ms. Virani contended in Aruna
Shanbaug v Union of India that Aruna, the victim, lacked cognizance, was unable
to chew her food and was bedridden for 36 years without a wish of improvement.
According to the petitioner, withholding meals could no longer be killing Aruna
but assisting her die peacefully.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The health center dean advocated
euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India, mentioning that the clinic body
of workers had been caring for Aruna’s fundamental needs for nearly 36 years
and could maintain to accomplish that willingly. The respondent emphasized
Aruna’s age (60) and counselled that she might skip away in the future, making
euthanasia needless.
The health center group of workers
had advanced a close emotional bond with Aruna, with one member inclined to
care for her without pay. They argued towards legalising passive euthanasia,
claiming it is able to be abused by family members, undermining societal
kindness and love.
The respondent contended in Aruna
Shanbaug vs Union of India that every individual has the right to life under
Article 21 and euthanasia, via definition, involves taking the lives of a
living being, making it immoral and inhuman. additionally, they raised the
problem of consent, wondering who might provide consent on behalf of Aruna,
given her incapacity to specifically consent for withdrawal from existence aid.
Judgement:
The courtroom in Aruna Shanbaug vs. Union of India made a
clear distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Euthanasia includes
the planned and high-quality termination of existence through the management of
deadly materials, normally considered a worldwide crime unless approved by
regulation. In India, active euthanasia is an instantaneous violation of
section 302(2) and Section 304(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Additionally,
doctor-assisted suicide is an offense beneath segment 309(4) of the IPC. on the
other hand, passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal of lifestyles-support
systems or medical treatment. The important thing difference lies within the
fact that “active” includes a planned action to stop existence, whilst
“passive” includes the omission of a motion.
The apex court in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India laid down
particular procedures and suggestions for granting passive euthanasia within
the “rarest of rare occasions,” rejecting the petitioner’s plea. It clarified
that choices regarding the withdrawal of existence guide could be made
employing the high court under Article 226.
Whilst an application is
received, the Chief Justice of the High Court has to represent a bench earlier
than which a committee of 3 official docs should be referred. a radical
examination of the affected person ought to take place and the state and the
family contributors ought to be given a word issued by the bench. The high
court is needed to make a rapid choice.
Crucial Analysis
In the landmark Gian Kaur case, the
ideal court had formerly rejected the popularity of the right to die within the
right to existence under Article 21 of the Indian charter. This recent judgment
marks a historic shift via legalizing passive euthanasia in India, aiming to
stop the suffering of patients enduring unbearable and prolonged pain. It
acknowledges that, despite advancements in technology, it is vital to remember
the fact that people must govern and maintain era, now not the opposite way
round. The judgment emphasises that each citizen is entitled to and has the
proper to die with dignity.
Worldwide views on
Euthanasia
?
The Netherlands: Criminalised since
2001, with strict due care standards, including voluntary and persistent
requests and unbiased clinical critiques.
?
Belgium: Legalized in 2002,
extending rights to terminally sick kids in 2014. allows euthanasia for
unbearable suffering, even in non-terminal instances.
?
Canada: Legalized in 2016 beneath medical assistance in death (MAID),
accelerated in 2021 for non-terminal illnesses causing unbearable suffering.
?
Colombia: Criminalised since 1997,
with a focus on affected person dignity and consent.
?
Ecuador: Decriminalized by way of
constitutional court docket ruling, emphasizing the right to a dignified dying.
?
Spain: Legalized in 2021,
declaring affected person autonomy and rights.
?
New Zealand: Legalized in 2021 under
the end of Life choice Act for terminal patients.
?
Switzerland: prison under strict
situations, provided with the aid of corporations like Dignitas.
?
Australia: Legalized in a couple of
states, with regional variations in eligibility and strategies.
?
USA: Legalized in pick states
along with Oregon, California, and Washington.
?
UK: Prohibits euthanasia
however allows passive euthanasia (withholding remedy).
?
India: Passive euthanasia is
allowed below strict recommendations established by using the best court.
?
Most African and Asian
international locations: Euthanasia is generally prohibited because of spiritual and
cultural beliefs.
Ethical Considerations and Public Perspective
The debate on euthanasia
includes strong ethical issues and diverse public views. World Medical
Association (WMA) opposes euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, defining
euthanasia as a doctor deliberately inflicting a patient’s dying at their
voluntary request. however, the WMA acknowledges that individual physicians can
also keep one-of-a-kind perspectives[7].
An outstanding case that
highlights the emotional size of this debate is that of Pamela Bone, an
Australian journalist who suffered from myeloma for four years. She supported
euthanasia, stating that even as she did not fear death, she feared the
suffering that would precede it[8].
Like many terminally sick patients, she endorsed the right to die on her very
own terms.
Supporters of euthanasia
argue that it offers a compassionate manner to relieve insufferable pain and suffering,
permitting individuals to die with dignity and preserve control over their
lives. in addition, they factor out that euthanasia can lessen prolonged
healthcare fees through stopping prolonged medical institution or hospice
stays.
Fighters, however,
contend that euthanasia is morally incorrect, even in instances of terminal
infection. They raise issues about ability abuses, along with coercion or
strain on inclined people, and invoke the "slippery slope" argument,
fearing that legalizing euthanasia ought to result in involuntary euthanasia.
Additionally, they pressure the sanctity of life, maintaining that legalizing
euthanasia ought to diminish the inherent value of human lives. moreover,
spiritual, cultural, and moral beliefs similarly shape the complex variety of
critiques on this deeply debated difficulty.
Arguments towards
Euthanasia:
?
Removing the Invalid: Fighters argue that
euthanasia undermines the cost of lifestyles and promotes discrimination in
opposition to people with terminal illnesses. Palliative care gives an
alternative through compassionate care.
?
Constitutional issues: Right to life beneath
Article 21 is an inherent right, and euthanasia contradicts this principle.
Legalized euthanasia should cause a decline in healthcare investments and
great.
?
Intellectual health
factors:
Depression and mental ailments often drive individuals to seek euthanasia,
highlighting the need for psychiatric intervention in place of termination of
existence.
?
Threat of Misuse: Legalization may additionally
result in unethical practices, together with coercion for inheritance.
?
Emphasis on Care: Advances in clinical
technological science can extend life, and palliative care can improve the
quality of life even if a remedy is impossible.
?
Commercialization of
Healthcare:
Legalizing euthanasia may lead to exacerbating inequalities, leading to passive
euthanasia pushed through monetary constraints.
Arguments assisting
Euthanasia:
?
Caregivers' Burden: Euthanasia may relieve
households from extended emotional, economic, and physical distress.
?
Proper to Refuse Care: The felony recognition of a patient’s right to refuse
life-sustaining treatment supports passive euthanasia.
?
Right to Die with Dignity: Sufferers with persistent or terminal ailments may also are
searching for euthanasia to avoid extended suffering.
?
Promoting Organ Donation: Euthanasia in terminal
cases can facilitate organ transplantation, saving different lives.
?
State's responsibility: Proponents argue that insufficient kingdom aid for healthcare
exacerbates struggling, making euthanasia a compelled choice.
Suggestions
?
Public Consciousness
Campaigns:
train residents on their rights concerning living wills and end-of-life care.
?
Felony clarity: Simplify the technique for passive euthanasia to make sure on
hand and honest implementation.
?
Medical education: Equip healthcare companies with education on moral and legal
aspects of euthanasia.
?
Support structures: increase palliative
care facilities and counselling offerings for sufferers and households.
?
Safeguards: establish robust mechanisms to prevent abuse of euthanasia laws.
Conclusion
The controversy on legalizing
euthanasia or health practitioner-assisted death often revolves around four key
moral standards: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. Beneficence emphasizes prioritizing the
patient’s well-being and relieving suffering. Non-maleficence requires
evaluating capacity risks and ensuring that no damage is caused via
interventions. Autonomy upholds a man or woman’s right to make non-public
selections, which includes advance directives or living wills. Justice focuses
on fairness, together with the right of entry to palliative care, patient
support, and equitable prison frameworks.
A comprehensive felony framework for
euthanasia in India is essential due to prevailing criminal ambiguities,
especially around active euthanasia. India can examine from international
locations wherein euthanasia is legalized to create laws that balance person
autonomy with protections against abuse, ensuring equity and safeguarding
susceptible populations. prison improvements have set essential precedents, but
effective implementation and public participation are critical. A balanced
approach that upholds dignity, compassion, and safeguards towards misuse will
foster a humane and just healthcare device.
[1] T. Fus, “Suicide and Culture in Japan: A
Study of Seppuku as an Institutionalized Form of Suicide” (1980) 15 Social
Psychiatry 57, at 63, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00578069.
[2] P. Chatterjee, “Thalaikoothal: The
Practice of Euthanasia in the Name of Custom” (2014) 87 European Researcher
2005, at 2012, https://doi.org/10.13187/er.2014.87.2005.
[3] AIR 2011 SCC 454
[4] AIR 1996 SCC 648
[5]Pinki Virani, "Passive Euthanasia is
Aruna’s Gift", The Hindu, May 17, 2015,
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/passive-euthanasia-is-arunas-gift-pinki-virani/article7220792.ece/amp/
(Last accessed on February 27, 2025).
[7] Owens, B. (2018). Was euthanasia dispute
behind CMA–WMA split? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 190(46),
E1369–E1370. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.109-5682
[8] Euthanasia: Utilitarianism and Morality
of Death Essay - 1945 words | Bartleby. (n.d.).
https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Euthanasia-Utiliarianism-and-Morality-of-Death-FKCHXZ6STC
Article Information
EUTHANASIA AND THE RIGHT TO DIE: LEGAL AND MORAL DEBATES IN INDIA
Authors: VITTORIA GAUTAM PAL
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/29
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.