Open Access Research Article
LIFE, LIBERTY AND LETTING GO RETHINKING THE RIGHT TO DIE
Published Paper
Article Details
LIFE, LIBERTY AND LETTING GO
RETHINKING THE RIGHT TO DIE
AUTHORED
BY - SNEHA M,
Student,
VIT School of Law, Chennai
CO-AUTHOR
- VEENAVARTHINI A,
Student,
VIT School of Law, Chennai
Abstract
Life and liberty are vast concepts,
but what about death? This paper delves into a seeming contradiction within the
right to life and liberty enshrined in the Constitutions of the World,
specifically in India as under Article 21. India being a diverse
country, understanding the cultural and religious influences on decision making
of PAS is vital. Even though there are less research, it is noticed that
varying attitudes among the medical professionals are influenced by the
religious and cultural background which eventually contributes to the
complexity of the issue.
Firstly, we explore the
criminalization of attempted suicide. Does it truly deter suicide or hinder
conversations about mental health? This
section proposes alternative solutions that prioritize the well-being of
individuals in crisis, such as research-backed interventions and mandatory
support systems.
Secondly, we turn to euthanasia, the
act of hastening death to alleviate suffering.
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are two highly discussed concepts in
medicine that may cause discomfort on certain occasions while providing relief
on others. While some forms, like withdrawing life support, are allowed,
physician-assisted suicide remains illegal. Should individuals facing terminal
illness and unbearable pain have the right to choose a dignified death? We
argue for a legal framework that recognizes the right to avoid prolonged
suffering and acknowledges a doctor's duty to prioritize a patient's
well-being, even if it means hastening death in a humane manner.
This paper aims to analyse on the
moral, legal, and social components of the right to die by examining relevant
legal cases and international approaches on the same. We advocate for a more
nuanced understanding of individual autonomy, ensuring the protection of all
citizens and their liberty throughout life, even as they contemplate its end.
Keywords
Physician-assisted suicide (PAS),
Euthanasia, right to die, Liberty, Dignified death, Mental Health.
1.
INTRODUCTION:
Life and
liberty are fundamental principles that society holds, entrenched in the
constitutions of nations around the world. Amidst this disclosure on such
rights, an often and overlooked aspect is the Right to Die. While exploring
this facet, we come across a collision of rights, that is: an innate freedom to
make choices regarding one’s life and the societal obligation to preserve life.
This paper delves into this collision, focusing on the paradoxical nature of
end-of-life choices.
As we live
in a multicultural and multi-religious world, it is critical to understand the
impact of culture and religion on decision-making processes, particularly in
the field of PAS. Inadequate attention has been paid to the cultural,
religious, and socioeconomic foundations that underpin the differing attitudes
on assisted suicide held by different segments of society.[1]
In India,
diverse religious beliefs shape attitudes towards suicide and euthanasia. For
example, Suicide is considered a violation of nonviolence in Hinduism, whereas
Islam and Sikhism consider euthanasia to be a serious sin. Despite the fact
that Christianity considers suicide to be a severe sin, it provides hope for
salvation. And suicide is prohibited in Buddhism, which emphasizes the sanctity
of life. This religious mosaic highlights the complexities of end-of-life
decisions and healthcare ethics in India.[2]
In India
abetment of suicide and attempt to suicide are both criminal offences[3].
It was contended that “while the 'right to life' is a natural right enshrined
in Article 21, suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life, and
hence incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of 'right to life'. The
State has a duty to safeguard life, and physicians have a duty to give
treatment and not harm patients. If euthanasia is legalized, there is a serious
concern that the state will refuse to invest in health (working towards the
right to life).”
Despite the growing
recognition of the importance of end-of-life autonomy, research on PAS remains
limited, particularly regarding its impact on medical professionals' decisions.
Although it may appear that physicians support the act of euthanasia
since they are in direct and frequent touch with end-of-life conditions, such
as palliative care, terminally ill, and critically ill patients. It is crucial
to note that the Hippocratic medical oaths made at professional graduations are
typically unambiguous in their opposition of euthanasia and assisted suicide
This condition implies that many medical students have behaviors built on
humanist ideas under the protection of faith and religion, and hence reject the
notion of euthanasia.
This study
argues for a more compassionate and nuanced approach to end-of-life care by
exploring the criminalisation of attempted suicide as well as the discussion
over euthanasia and PAS[4].
It argues for a legal framework that recognizes individuals' right to avoid
prolonged suffering and acknowledges healthcare professionals' duty to
prioritize patients' well-being, even if it means hastening death in a humane
manner.
The
purpose of this research is to provide an international overview in order to
provide ethical support for the debate on this subject. By creating a deeper
knowledge of individual autonomy and the intricacies of end-of-life decisions,
we hope to advocate for a more humane and dignified end-of-life experience for
all.[5]
2.
CRIMINALIZATION OF ATTEMPTED SUICIDE: A FLAWED STRATEGY
Should the desperation of a suicidal
act be met with handcuffs? Criminalizing attempted suicide not only fails to deter
self-harm but actively hinders open communication and effective prevention
strategies. In this section, the authors make the arguments explaining the
problem with such criminalisation and proposes a more humane, evidence-based
approach.
2.1
Current legal framework
Laws criminalizing
attempted suicide exist in various forms around the world, often carrying
punishments like imprisonment or fines.
These laws have their roots in historical conceptions of suicide as a
sin or a crime against the state.[6] However,
such views are increasingly incompatible with modern understandings of mental
health.
Section 309[7] of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are prime examples of such legal relics. This
section holds that whoever attempts to commit or does any action towards the
commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment. While
this section remains in effect, it has been superseded by the Mental Healthcare
Act of 2017 – Section 115[8] of
which decriminalizes attempts to commit suicide. This newer legislation
recognizes the mental distress underlying attempted suicide and prioritizes
treatment over punishment. This shift reflects a growing global consensus –
suicide is a symptom of a deeper struggle, not a crime.
2.2
Does Criminalization Deter Suicide or Hinder Open Communication?
In
India, over 135,000 people died by suicide in 2012 alone, a staggering number.
This alarming figure reflects a worrying trend. Suicides across the country
have risen by 22.7% over the decade from 2002 (110,417) to 2012 (135,445).[9] Contrary to its purpose,
criminalizing attempted suicide creates a chilling effect, deterring people in
crisis from seeking help. Fearing legal
repercussions, they may retreat further into isolation and despair.
This
reinforces the stigma surrounding suicide and mental health, silencing open
communication, a crucial step towards recovery.
Think about a loved one struggling.
Would the threat of jail time encourage them to confide in you, or would
it push them deeper into silence?
Criminalization does not deter suicide; it hinders the very support
system that saves lives.[10] Studies show no evidence of
criminalization lowering suicide rates.
In fact, it can create a climate of fear and shame, making it harder for
people to reach out for the help they desperately need.
2.3
A Culture of Shame vs. A Network of Support
Criminalization
sends a dangerous message – those in crisis are criminals, not individuals in
desperate need of help. This outdated
approach prioritizes punishment over the support systems crucial for effective
suicide prevention. “Suicide is a cry for help, not a crime,” emphasizes Dr.
Hunt[11], a
renowned mental health professional.
The
threat of punishment creates a terrifying effect, deterring individuals from
reaching out for help. Criminalization pushes them further into isolation and
silences open communication, a vital step in recovery. Law enforcement
involvement, intended as intervention, can feel punitive and retraumatizing for
someone already in crisis.
Decriminalization
paves the way for a more supportive environment. It sends a clear message that individuals in
crisis are not criminals but valued members of our community worthy of
compassion and support. Making evidence-based therapies,[12]
crisis hotlines, and strong peer support networks readily available is
paramount. Schools and communities can play a vital role by promoting mental
health awareness and education programs that normalize seeking help.
2.4
Alternative Solutions:
Prioritizing Well-being with a three-pronged system
The
current approach to suicide attempts, often focused on punishment, fails to
address the underlying mental health issues. A more effective strategy would
prioritize providing immediate support and comprehensive treatment. Here is a
proposed three-pronged approach to post-suicide attempt intervention, one
prioritizing care and not punishment:
1.
Outreach
and Contact:
·
Upon identification of a suicide attempt, a designated
support team makes immediate contact with the individual. This could involve
trained mental health professionals, social workers, or crisis intervention
specialists.
·
The focus should be on offering support and resources,
building trust, and de-escalating any immediate crisis.
2. Mandated,
Government-Funded Psychiatric Evaluation:
·
A government-funded psychiatric evaluation becomes
mandatory for all suicide attempt survivors. This ensures a thorough assessment
of mental health needs, free of financial burden on the individual.
·
The evaluation should not be punitive but serve as a
gateway to appropriate treatment options.
3. Treatment
in Quality Rehabilitation Centers:
·
Based on the evaluation, individuals relate to
high-quality rehabilitation centers specializing in treating the underlying
mental health issues that led to the attempt.
·
Treatment plans should incorporate evidence-based
therapies tailored to the individual's needs.
This might include therapy sessions, medication, and support groups.
This
proposed system prioritizes treatment over punishment and offers a clear
pathway to recovery. It removes the stigma associated with seeking help and
ensures access to quality care, which is crucial for preventing future attempts
and promoting long-term well-being. Additionally, the authors suggest a system
for the training of first responders and healthcare professionals on handling
post-suicide attempt situations effectively – one which teaches them to
empathise and defuse the situation instead of letting personal bias add fuel to
the fire. Further, it is advised to attempt partnering with community
organizations that already provide ongoing support and address any social
determinants impacting mental health. Laslty, there must be better enforcement
of a strict confidentiality protocol to ensure individuals feel safe seeking
help without fear of judgment or repercussions.
By
implementing this three-pronged approach and its supporting elements, we can
create a comprehensive safety net for those struggling with suicidal thoughts.
This shift in focus, from punishment to care, can be a turning point in suicide
prevention efforts.
3. EUTHANASIA AND PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE: RELIEF VS. DISCOMFORT IN END-OF-LIFE CARE
3.1 Defining euthanasia and pas
The
significant improvement of medicine in recent years has raised the question of
whether it is necessary to employ all conceivable measures to keep a person
alive, in other words, whether we should use all available therapy even when
there is a slim possibility of success. For some, dying with dignity means
death without pain[13]. Any death
that is accompanied by suffering is considered undignified.
Physicians
are required to respect a patient's autonomy and beneficence, and according to
the classical Hippocratic Oath, any form of euthanasia or Physician Assisted
Suicide (PAS) will violate the patient's rights. This raises the question of
whether physician assisted suicide and euthanasia violate the Hippocratic Oath,
or if they can be interpreted as a way to respect the patient's autonomy and
beneficence.[14]
Physician
Assisted Suicide, also known as Physician Assisted Death, is the act of a
physician providing medication to intentionally end a patient's life at the
patient's explicit request. PAS allows the physician to supply the drug, which
the patient then administers on their own. In other words, the physician
provides the patient the life-ending medication but does not administer it. The
final decision is totally up to the patient. Along with PAS comes euthanasia,
which changes slightly but has one significant difference. In some circumstances,
the physician both provides and administers the drug to the patient, thus
ending their lives rather than the patient's own.[15]
Euthanasia
has several characteristics, ranging from active (introducing anything to cause
death) to passive (withholding treatment or supporting measures); voluntary
(consent) to involuntary (approval from guardian). Sedatives or neuromuscular
relaxants are commonly employed in these situations, causing all physical
processes to gradually decline and eventually cease.
Euthanasia and its
regulation raise difficult ethical concerns. On the one hand, there is the
patient's ongoing suffering, as well as the need to terminate the suffering in
the absence of hope for future recovery. On the other hand, we have questions
regarding whether a person has the right to end their own life, and if so, how
the State may manage the catastrophic consequences.[16]
3.2 Withdrawing life support (WLST) vs. physician-assisted suicide (pas)
The
traditional ethical contrast between PAS/E and WLST is the physician's intent:
in the former, life is intentionally ended, whereas in the latter, the patient
is allowed to die. The physician's main objective is to promote comfort in both
PAS/E and WLST; the only difference is the instrumental act. As a result, we must compare the instrumental
acts: willfully ending life vs deliberately ending life support. Are they
morally equal? Importantly, we identify a distinction between the two, but we
do not believe the difference is significant enough to justify outlawing one while
letting the other.[17]
WLST
is ethically distinct from PAS/E due to significant differences in intention,
causality, and other considerations.
First,
whereas PAS/E necessitates intent to cause death, WWLST does not. Life support
is not withheld or discontinued in order to take the patient's life. Rather,
WWLST's objective is to respect the patient's decision that any given
intervention is unduly demanding or disproportionate in his or her specific
living circumstances and should therefore be avoided in order to minimize
suffering and maximize dignity. Death is a predictable but unintentional
outcome of WLST.
Second,
death is not a means for achieving WLST aims. It can be considered successful
regardless of whether or not the patient dies.
The
ethical significance of the distinction between intending and foreseeing
consequences has been well argued, and it is commonly accepted in end-of-life
care decision-making. Given this contrast, we argue that WLST is distinct from
PAS/E, and that we can accept the former as an essential component of
benevolent care while rejecting the latter as a violation of the
patient-physician contract.[18]
3.3 Supreme court's decision on the right to die
with dignity
·
P. Rathinam vs Union of India, 1994
P.
Rathinam and Nagbhushan Patnaik filed petitions contesting the
constitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 309 punishes
anyone who attempts suicide with up to a year of simple prison. The Supreme
Court made a connection between the other fundamental rights: just as the right
to free expression under Article 19 provides the right to speak but also
includes the choice not to speak, the right to life under Article 21 includes
the right to die. Thus, Section 309 was declared invalid.
·
Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab, 1996
Gian
Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were found guilty by a Trial Court under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to six years in
prison and a Rs. 2,000 fine for abetting Ms. Kulwant Kaur's suicide. Section
306 penalizes anyone who assists in the act of suicide, while Section 309
penalizes anyone who attempts to commit suicide. It was contended that, as
decided in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the Article 21 right to life includes
the right to die. As a result, a person abetting suicide is just assisting in
the enforcement of Article 21. The Supreme Court's five-judge bench overruled
P. Rathinam case.
The
bench ruled that the 'Right to Life' as declared in Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution does not encompass the 'Right to Die'. The Supreme Court
highlighted that the 'right to life' includes the 'right to a dignified life'
until the person dies.
·
Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India
The
Supreme Court, in Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India, established detailed
processes and rules for awarding passive euthanasia under the "rarest of
rare circumstances," dismissing the petitioner's request. It clarified
that the High Court might make decisions on the discontinuation of life support
under Article 226.[19]
The
Supreme Court earlier rejected the recognition of the right to die under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution in the famous Gian Kaur case. This new
decision represents a watershed moment in Indian history, authorizing passive
euthanasia in order to alleviate the suffering of patients who are in severe
and prolonged pain. It admits that, despite technological improvements, people
must govern and sustain technology, not the other way around. The verdict
emphasizes that every citizen is entitled to and has the right to die in dignity.
4. THE RIGHT TO DIE: A LABYRINTH OF MORAL, LEGAL, AND
SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The right
to die, often discussed in the context of physician-assisted suicide (PAS),
presents a complex ethical and legal conundrum. What is the morality-oriented
argument in this debate – is the grant of a right to die moral? What is the
internationally accepted norm? The social and cultural beliefs on mental health
a society play a crucial role in the debate surrounding right to die.
4.1
Navigating the Moral Labyrinth: Arguments for and against PAS
Why grant right to
die?
Respect for Individual
Autonomy and a Dignified Death: Indian
philosophy emphasizes individual freedom and liberation (moksha).[20]
In the context of a terminal illness with unbearable suffering, PAS allows
individuals to make a conscious choice about their final days. This upholds
their autonomy and dignity, allowing them to die peacefully on their own terms,
surrounded by loved ones.
Compassion and Minimizing
Suffering: The concept of Ahimsa (non-violence) extends to minimizing
suffering. When a cure is unavailable
and pain is excruciating, PAS can be seen as a compassionate act, allowing a
peaceful end to a life already marked by immense suffering. This alleviates not
only the patient's pain but also the emotional burden on their loved ones.
Why not?
Sanctity of Life and the
Role of Karm; Many Indian religions view life as sacred and a gift. Suicide, even with assistance, could be seen
as a violation of this sacredness and a disruption of one's karmic journey. Furthermore, the concept of Sanskaras (life
experiences) suggests that even terminal illness can offer opportunities for
spiritual growth and learning.
Legalizing PAS raises
concerns about a potential slippery slope where the sanctity of life diminishes. Vulnerable populations, like the elderly or
those facing financial hardship, might feel pressured to choose PAS. Additionally, the possibility of misdiagnosis
or coercion by family members raises ethical concerns about potential abuse of
this practice.
4.2
International Approaches to Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Comparative
Analysis
The question of
physician-assisted suicide (PAS) legality sparks fervent debate across the
globe. This brief explores the
international landscape, highlighting variations in legal status and suicide
rates.
Legalization with
Safeguards:
·
Switzerland:
Pioneering PAS legislation[21]
allows terminally ill, competent adults to access lethal medication after a
thorough review by two doctors.
·
Netherlands:
The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act (2001)[22]
establishes strict guidelines for PAS, requiring a terminal illness, unbearable
suffering, and a repeated request from a fully informed patient.
·
Belgium:
The Act Euthanasia (2002)[23]
legalizes both PAS and euthanasia (physician-administered lethal medication)
under specific criteria, including a terminal illness, unbearable physical or
mental suffering, and a competent patient's repeated request.
·
Canada:
The Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation (2016), which came after a
Supreme Court ruling[24],
permits PAS and euthanasia for eligible patients with a grievous and
irremediable medical condition and foreseeable natural death.
Partial Legalization:
·
United
States: PAS remains illegal in most states. However, 10 states[25]
and the District of Columbia[26]
have legalized physician-assisted dying (PAD), where a physician prescribes
lethal medication for self-administration. These laws typically require a
terminal illness, a waiting period, and multiple physician consultations.
Complete Prohibition:
·
Many
countries, including India, Ireland, and most of Asia, have no legal framework
for PAS. Suicide itself might be illegal or carry social stigma.
The international
landscape surrounding PAS is constantly evolving. Countries that have legalized PAS grapple
with refining their legal frameworks and addressing concerns about potential
abuse and the emotional impact on physicians.
Meanwhile, countries wrestling with the issue must weigh individual
autonomy against safeguards and potential societal shifts. Ultimately,
navigating the complex moral, legal, and social considerations surrounding PAS
remains a work in progress for many nations.
5.
RECONCILING LIBERTY WITH THE RIGHT TO DIE: A FRAMEWORK FOR PATIENT AUTONOMY
The right to die ignites a fierce
bioethical debate. At the heart lies the question: how do we reconcile
individual autonomy with the protection of vulnerable lives, particularly at
the end of life? This section proposes a framework that respects patient
autonomy while ensuring safeguards against abuse.
5.1
Ensuring Patient Protection Throughout Life, Including End-of-Life
Decisions
·
Respecting
Patient Autonomy: A core principle is respecting a competent adult’s right to
make informed decisions about their medical care[27],
including end-of-life decisions. This autonomy stems from the fundamental right
to self-determination and bodily integrity. In Indian context, Article 21[28]
may be cited to confer such right impliedly along with the right of personal
liberty.
·
Competence
and Informed Consent: Crucially, the patient must be mentally competent to make
their wishes known. This requires a clear understanding of their diagnosis,
prognosis, treatment options, and the implications of PAS. Informed consent, obtained through open communication
with healthcare professionals, is paramount.
·
Safeguards
Against Coercion: Measures must be put in place to prevent coercion or undue
influence on vulnerable individuals. This could involve independent
assessments, mandatory waiting periods after expressing a desire for PAS, and
ensuring access to social and psychological support.
5.2
Balancing Liberty with the Right to Avoid Prolonged Suffering: A Compassionate Approach
Balancing Autonomy and
the Sanctity of Life is a tricky challenge, all opponents of PAS often cite the
sanctity of life as an absolute principle. However, this framework proposes a
balance. While life is valuable, the
right to avoid intolerable suffering in terminal illness should also be considered.
Clear guidelines are crucial. Eligibility for PAS could be restricted to
terminally ill patients with a demonstrably short lifespan and experiencing
unbearable suffering, despite palliative care.
Physicians play a vital
role in ensuring ethical practice. Doctors should not feel obligated to
participate in PAS but should respect a patient’s competent wishes and
facilitate access to the appropriate channels if desired. A mandatory
psychological evaluation can help ensure the decision is not rooted in
depression or temporary emotional distress. Addressing underlying mental health
issues is crucial before considering PAS.
A system for reporting
and reviewing PAS cases can promote transparency and identify potential areas
for improvement.[29] This
ensures the practice adheres to ethical guidelines and prevents abuse. This brief
framework prioritizes patient autonomy while safeguarding against potential
misuse. It must be added on and emphasized to ensure open communication, robust
safeguards, and a compassionate approach towards end-of-life decisions. By
striking a balance between individual liberty and the right to avoid prolonged
suffering, we can create a system that respects patient dignity and offers a
humane option for those facing a terminal illness.
CONCLUSION:
This study
calls for a more compassionate and nuanced approach to end-of-life care by
addressing two crucial issues: the criminalization of attempted suicide and the
debate over euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). The purpose of
end-of-life care is to avoid or alleviate suffering as much as possible while
honoring the wishes of dying patients[30].
While the landmark Supreme Court decision on passive euthanasia is an important
step toward recognizing the right to die with dignity, further legislative
action and rules are required to effectively govern euthanasia and PAS in
India. Any legislation should prioritize patient autonomy, protect against
abuse, and provide access to palliative care and support services for people
with terminal illnesses[31].
Furthermore,
continued discussion and study on end-of-life issues are critical for informing
evidence-based legislation and promoting compassionate and ethical care for all
people, including those nearing the end of life.
6. REFERENCES
·
Boruah. J (2021), Euthanasia in India: A Review on its
Constitutional Validity, LEX HUMANITARIAE: Journal for A Change, 1-10.
·
N. Gabriel (2020), The Right to Life versus the Right
to Die, Journal of Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty: Law, Vol. 8,
Issue 1, 1-15.
·
M. Balai (2020), An Analytical Study on Right to Die
and Euthanasia, Indian Journal of Legal Studies & Innovation, Vol. 2, Issue
3.
·
S.R. Laxman & Ali M.R. (2018), The Concept of
Right to Die in India: A Critical Analysis, Indian Journal of Creative Research
Thoughts, Vol. 6, Issue 2.
·
Darekar, S.D. (2021), Euthanasia – meaning, types and
its Indian framework, International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and
Analysis, Vol, 4, Issue 9.
[1] Shikha Mishra and Uday Veer Singh,
Euthanasia and its Desirability in India (Teerthanker Mahaveer University,
Moradabad, U.P., 2020).
[2]Vinod K. Sinha, Sujit Sarkhel,
et.al., Euthanasia: An Indian Perspective (Indian Journal of Psychiatry
54(2):177-83, 2012).
[3] Suresh Bada Math and Santosh K.
Chaturvedi, “Euthanasia: Right to Life v. Right to Die” Indian Journal of
Medical Research 899–902 (2012).
[4] Yelson Alejandro Picón-Jaimes,
Ivan David Lozada-Martinez, et.al., “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: An
In-Depth Review of Relevant Historical Aspects” 75 Annals of Medicine and
Surgery (2020).
[5] Matteo Scopetti, Donato Morena,
et.al., “Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Mental Disorders: Ethical Positions
in the Debate Between Proportionality, Dignity, and the Right to Die” Mdpi (18
May 2023).
[6] N. Gabriel (2020), The Right to
Life versus the Right to Die, Journal of Logos Universality Mentality Education
Novelty: Law, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 1-15.
[7] Section 309, Indian Penal Code,
Act 12 of 1891.
[8] Section 115, Mental Healthcare
Act, Act 10 of 2017.
[9] Accidental deaths and suicide in
India. National Crime Records Bureau. Ministry of Home Affairs. 2012. [Last
accessed on May 2 2024].
[10] N. Gabriel (2020), The Right to
Life versus the Right to Die, Journal of Logos Universality Mentality Education
Novelty: Law, Vol. 8, Issue 1, 1-15.
[11] Jessica Hunt, Punishing the
tortured: Criminalisation of suicide, 401 The Lancet 1241 (2023).
[12] S.R. Laxman & Ali M.R. (2018),
The Concept of Right to Die in India: A Critical Analysis, Indian Journal of
Creative Research Thoughts, Vol. 6, Issue 2.
[13] Manjari Shah and Disha Tiwari,
“Death by Choice: Is It Worth It?” 5 Cancer Research, Statistics, and Treatment
623-624 (Oct–Dec 2022).
[14] Farooq Khan and George Tadros,
“Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Indian Context: Sooner or Later
the Need to Ponder!” 35 Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (2013).
[15] Eduardo Rodriquez, “The Arguments
for Euthanasia and PhysicianAssisted Suicide: Ethical Reflections” 68 The
Linacre Quarterly (2001).
[16] Daniel Munday, Jeremy Dale, et.al.,
“Choice and Place of Death: Individual Preferences, Uncertainty, and the
Availability of Care” 100 Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (2007).
[17]Joseph M. Taraska, Withdrawing Life
Support/ Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia (Holland-Frei Cancer
Medicine, 6th edn., 2003).
[18] Stanley Macaden, Naveen Sulakshan
Salins, et.al., “End of Life Care Policy for the Dying: Consensus Position
Statement of Indian Association of Palliative Care” 20 Indian Journal of
Palliative Care (2014).
[19] Euthanasia and the Right to Die in
India, 2023
[20] Boruah. J (2021), Euthanasia in
India: A Review on its Constitutional Validity, LEX HUMANITARIAE: Journal for A
Change, 1-10.
[21] Section 311, The Swiss Criminal
Code, 1942.
[22] Termination of Life on Request and
Assisted Suicide (Review Procedure), 2001, Dutch Ministry of Security and
Justice.
[23] Section 3, The Belgian Act on
Euthanasia, 2002.
[24] Carter v Canada (AG), 2015 SCC 5.
[25] The states are California,
Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, New Mexico, New
Jersey.
[26] District of Columbia Death with
Dignity Act, 2015.
[27] Boruah. J (2021), Euthanasia in
India: A Review on its Constitutional Validity, LEX HUMANITARIAE: Journal for A
Change, 1-10.
[28] Article 21, the Constitution of
India.
[29] Darekar, S.D. (2021), Euthanasia –
meaning, types and its Indian framework, International Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis, Vol, 4, Issue 9.
[30]Melahat Akdeniz, Bülent Yard?mc?,
et.al., “Ethical Considerations at the End-Of-Life Care” SAGE Journals (2021).
[31] J. Pereira, “Legalizing Euthanasia
or Assisted Suicide: The Illusion of Safeguards and Controls” PubMed Central
(2011).
Article Information
LIFE, LIBERTY AND LETTING GO RETHINKING THE RIGHT TO DIE
Authors: SNEHA M, VEENAVARTHINI A
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/06/17
- 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.