Euthanasia - Historical Reference And Religious Outlook
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
EUTHANASIA: HISTORICAL REFERENCE AND
RELIGIOUS OUTLOOK Gaurav Bhatt, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University. Vatsal Chaudhary, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University.
ABSTRACT
Euthanasia refers to the act of indulging in killing someone for merciful purposes. It involves some complicated intersection of law, philosophy, and medicine. The document is mainly concerning the historical and religious views on euthanasia. Euthanasia stems from two Greek words, “eu” means good, and “thanatos” means death. This deals with questions like legal frameworks surrounding euthanasia in various regions of world, including India, where the Supreme Court has legalized passive euthanasia, Aruna Shanbaug case1 is the one that shaped India’s legal view regarding euthanasia. In Canada, Netherlands and Belgium euthanasia is completely legalized and also in some states of the USA. This document deals with the sociological perspectives surrounding euthanasia and the moral challenges that come with it.
Euthanasia still has a long way to travel as it will include adequate discourses for human dignity, patient autonomy and law. Unlike suicide, which is a function of completely self-abolition, euthanasia involves assistance from another person, leading to complex debate around validity, morality and therapy. The paper examines historical references and religious outlooks as well as its classifications on euthanasia, including active, inactive, voluntary and non-voluntary forms. Discussion extends to the legal status of euthanasia in various countries including India, where the Apex Court has recently legalized the passive euthanasia. Study of notable case, such as Aruna Shanbaug, has greatly influenced India's legal structure on the issue.
Internationally, countries such as Netherlands, Belgium and Canada with some states in the United States have implemented specific laws allowing euthanasia under certain conditions. Additionally, this paper addresses both arguments, with special attention to the sociological approach, moral dilemmas, and both for the euthanasia. Despite the establishment of legal provisions for euthanasia, the ongoing discourse is necessary, as the balance between human dignity, patient autonomy and legal investigation is a controversial issue.
1 Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011 (3) Scale 298 Manu/SC/0176/2011
Introduction
The word "euthanasia" comes from the Greek words "Eu" and "Thanatos," which indicate "good death" or "easy death. " "The act or practice of killing or bringing death" to a person who has a particularly painful, incurable illness or condition. Every person tries to terminate their life at some time when they are experiencing unbearable pain till they pass away naturally because they always want to enjoy life to the fullest until the end. The concept of suicide is different from euthanasia; a person intentionally ending his or her life is suicide, whereas, when a person suffering from intolerance pain asks to end the life is euthanasia. Euthanasia is basically based on the idea that, if a person has a right to live a dignified life, then a person should also have a right to die with dignity too.
Legalization of procedure and history of euthanasia has remarked a global impact and generated a global debate. Even after this the (pas) physician- assisted suicide and euthanasia is forbidden in a lot many countries. In a situation, a person is suffering from intolerable pain arises in front of the family and medical practitioners then the medical knowledge is of no use, it would be brought to their knees, where it’ll be powerless, because of their limitations, as patients and unexpected condition in which they see themselves2. A patient is competent of giving consent, he wish to die as for him it’s easy to die rather than continuing to live in an unpleasant condition, where the patient is suffering unbearable pain continuously. Therefore, we can define euthanasia as an activity where he wants to end his life. Meaning of Euthanasia.
“Euthanasia” term was coined by Sir Francis Bacon who was an English Philosopher early in the 17th century. The use of any lethal agent by a person mainly the doctor, to a patient suffering from intolerable pain and suffering, for the purpose of relieving the patient’s pain and suffering is defined as Euthanasia. The Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice3 defines euthanasia as, an act
2 K. K. Agnihotri, A perspective on Life 80 ( Matix, New Delhi, 2nd edition, 2009)
3 The Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice
that ends life to relieve someone from unbearable suffering or a distressing condition. "The deliberate act of ending someone's life, in order to relieve them from an incurable ailment, excruciating pain, or deeply sorrowful state" is the definition of euthanasia. "The administration of drugs, with the explicit intention of ending the patient's life at his request4”. "The action or practice of killing or causing the death of an individual who has a painful, incurable disease or condition out of mercy. " is the definition according to the Black’s Law Dictionary, (8th edition)5. In simple words, euthanasia is an act of ending person’s life deliberately, based on the belief that, given their condition, death would be a more compassionate choice than prolonging their suffering6.
Types of Euthanasia are:- 1- Voluntary Euthanasia:- This type basically means or refers to the right to choice of a patient who is very sick and who decides to life. It basically refers to an action taken by the physician and patient, where they have agreed with consent to end the patient’s life. 2- Involuntary Euthanasia:- The patient killed without the expressed consent is known as involuntary euthanasia. It usually occurs without the will of the patient who is not in favor of euthanasia, this type of euthanasia amounts to murder and is a criminal offence. 3- Non Voluntary Euthanasia:- This basically refers to this type of euthanasia where the person/patient is not in the state to tell his/her choice between dying and living, basically incompetent to seek or ask for euthanasia. So, a relevant person or a family member takes a decision on behalf of the patient.
4- Active Euthanasia- It means that putting an individual to death painlessly for merciful and generous reasons by the physician/doctor administrating the dose lethal in nature of medication to the patient.
4 Brody, Brauch (1998). Life and Death decision making New York Oxford’s University Press.
5 Black’s Law Dictionary, (8th edition).
6 Lewy G. Assisted suicide in US and EUROPE (New York:- Oxford University Press, Inc 2011)
5- Passive Euthanasia- This refers to the process of withholding the life support treatment in order to accelerate the patient’s death for merciful and generous reasons because of their negative quality of the life. In this type of euthanasia, doctor usually does not kill the patient instead, they don’t use the devices which are necessary to keep them alive. Historical Background The concept of voluntary suicide is not a new invention of human society. In the ancient Greek and Roman world, it was considered acceptable to help someone to die or to end life in few situations. For an example, in Sparta, one of ancient Greek cities, newborns were killed if they were severe congenital defects. Similarly, there are records of some ancient communities that practice voluntary type of euthanasia on the elderly people.
Many religious texts, which include the Bible, Rig Vedas and Quran, can be found in references to suicide or euthanasia. In Vedic age in India we saw numerous instances of people ending their lives for religious reasons, with the Mahabharata and Ramayana containing several such examples. Many people believe that doctor should not approve euthanasia request by a patient, as it goes against nature in separating the soul from the body and precipitates karma of the both, the doctor, and the patient. Others will say that, euthanasia is violation of ahimsa principle, or non-violence and thus should not be tolerated at all. However, some Hindus see it differently, believing that helping to end a person’s suffering is an act of compassion and a moral duty.
Scholars like Govardana and Kulluka, while commenting on Manusmriti, noted that a person suffering from an incurable disease or extreme misfortune may take mahaprasthana (the great departure) or a journey that leads to death, without violating Vedic teachings, which otherwise prohibit suicide7. Two basic perspectives exist within Hinduism. One believes in helping to end a person's painful life, as it is compassionate and the moral duty. The other view holds that interference in the cycle of death and rebirth harms the soul's journey and transfers the patient's remaining karma to those involved. This argument can also be traced out for life support machines—keeping someone alive artificially is unnatural. However, as a supportive measure to let them heal for a while, most 7 Laws of Manu, translated by George Buhler. Sacred Books of the East, by F. Maxmuller (1967 reprint) Vol.
25, page – 206 accept the use of life support. Hindus especially adhere to a conscious and peaceful death, and too much palliative care that reduces mental acuity cannot work in the direction of that ideal. Euthanasia is totally prohibited by Islam. Life is sacred, it’s a gift from Allah, only he can decide how long it should be. Human beings should not interfere with this divine plan. The Quran clearly states that taking a life, except in the cause of justice, is a grave sin—killing one person is considered killing all of humanity. Another prohibition is suicide, for Allah has tender mercy and encourages believers not to commit harm against them. Most Christians are also against euthanasia, considering life as a god-given gift.
Life and death being part of God's creation should be given due respect, and no human being possess the right to take an innocent life, even if he or she wants to die. The teaching is rather that, the human beings are made in the image of God, emphasizing the preservation of life. Euthanasia in different countries: In the latter half of the 20th century, the practice of euthanasia has grown in significance and is now a hotly debated topic worldwide. There are numerous cases of euthanasia and suicide in various nations. a- Netherlands : In April 2002, the Netherlands became the first European nation to legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia in the Netherlands is governed by the "Termination of life on request and assisted suicide (review procedures) Act, 2002.
" It explains that physical assisted suicide, or pas, and euthanasia are not crimes as long as the doctor complies with the guidelines and acts with appropriate caution. It also allows euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide under very specific conditions. While killing someone at their request entails a twelve-year term in the Netherlands, helping someone commit suicide carries a three-year prison sentence or a fine. If all of the following requirements are met, the legislation permits a medical review board to drop charges against physicians who practice euthanasia: i- If a patient request to seek euthanasia, it should be voluntary, moreover the request cannot be granted if the patient is intoxicated, suffering from physiological illness or is under the influence of drugs. ii- It is essential to speak with at least one impartial physician who can verify the circumstances.
iii- Suffering of the patient is unbearable and shows no chance of improvement. iv- The patient must be fully aware about the condition which he/she is suffering through. v- The patient must be 12 years old, and if the age of the patient lies between 12 to 16 years, then in that case the consent of their parents is required. vi- The doctor must carry out euthanasia or death in a medically appropriate manner. b- United States: There lies a vast difference between active euthanasia and the passive euthanasia law in United States. Euthanasia is completely prohibited, as the Supreme Court ruled in the cases of Washington v. Gluckberg8 and Vacco v. Quill9.
However, physician assisted suicide is permitted in some states, such as Oregon, where it is permitted under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act of 199710; Washington, where it is permitted under the Washington Death and Dignity Act of 2008; and Montana, where it is permitted by the State Judiciary rather than the legislature. c- Canada: Here in Canada, patients have the freedom to decline life-sustaining therapies, but they are not entitled to demand euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide under Canadian law. Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada states that physician assisted suicide is prohibited in this case. The Apex Court of Canada ruled in Sue Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General)11 that the state's interest will take precedence over an individual's in a physician aided suicide case.
8 521 US 702 (1997)
9 521 US 793 (1997)
10 Oregon Death with dignity Act, 1997
11 (1993) 3 SCR 519
d- Australia: The Northern Territory of Australia became the first to legalise euthanasia by adopting the Rights of the Terminally III Act, 1996. The Supreme Court of the Northern Territory of Australia ruled in Wake v. Northern Territory of Australia12 that euthanasia was allowed; however, the Euthanasia Laws, Act, 1997 repealed the Northern Territory Legislation and made euthanasia illegal once more. e- Belgium: By passing “Belgium Act on Euthanasia”, in May 2002, which is a bit similar like that of passed by Netherlands, euthanasia was made legal by the Belgian Parliament. f- Switzerland: Suicide? It is not a crime in Switzerland. Assisting someone for a suicide is only a crime, if the motive behind that is selfish; this is according to the Article 115 of Swiss Penal Code13.
Here, it does not that the patient should be terminally ill or any physician is required, the only this that is required is the motive must not be selfish. Assistedsuicide is legally permitted in Switzerland, and can be performed by the nonphysicians, but euthanasia is still illegal. g- England: The House of Lords approved non-voluntary euthanasia in the case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland14 where the patient was in a persistent vegetative condition. The physician's action in this case involved the removal of artificial measures intended to prolong life. In this instance, it was decided that it would be illegal to treat an aware, mentally sound adult without getting their agreement. The individual in question is free to choose whether or not to get treatment.
12 521 US 702 (1997)
13 Swiss Penal Code
14 1993 (1) All ER 821 (HL).
Additionally, it was stated that the doctor would provide the therapies that would be most beneficial to the unconscious patient in the event of an accident or other circumstance that renders the patient unconscious and unable to agree to medical treatment. All of the House of Lords' judges concurred in the case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland that Anthnoy Bland ought to be permitted to pass away. The question still stands: who will determine what is in the patient's best interest if they are in persistent vegetative state (PVs)? Numerous matters are decided in the U. S. A. courts, frequently using a variety of methods.
“A human being of sound mind and of adult years has a right to decide what shall be done with his own body, and an operation being performed by a surgeon without his patient's consent commits an assault, for which he is liable for the damages”15, noted Justice Cardozo during his tenure on the Court of Appeals of New York. h- India: Suicide attempts and their encouragement are prohibited in our nation. The Supreme Court heard a challenge to the legality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code in 1994. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 309 of the I. P. C. was unconstitutional under the "Right to Life" (Article 21). The suffering endured by a rape victim who is compelled to stand trial for attempted suicide was first articulated by Supreme Court Justice B. L. Hansaria. In the ruling in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the judge used the word "persecution" to characterise such a trial.
The Supreme Court heard a strong case of aiding and abetting suicide under Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code in 1996. The accused were criminalised in the trial court, and the High Court subsequently imposed the punishment. In a Supreme Court appeal, they argued that the "right to die" ought to be a part of Article 21 of the Constitution and that punishing someone for aiding someone else in exercising their fundamental right under Article 21 is a violation of that article. The Supreme Court was persuaded to re-examine its previous ruling and review the right-to-death ruling. The matter was immediately referred to a Constitution Bench of the Indian Supreme Court, which ruled in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab that the "right
15 Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 129 - 30, 105 N.E.92, 93 (1914)
to life" guaranteed by Article 21 did not encompass the freedom to die. The Supreme Court of India permitted the passive euthanasia of patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS) who were on withdrawing life support in a landmark ruling rejected active euthanasia, which involves giving a fatal injection to end a person's life. Whether or whether the freedom to die constitutes a basic right under Article 21 was the main point of contention for arbitration before the Supreme Court. Therefore, every Indian citizen has the "Right to Live with Dignity" and shouldn't be coerced into taking their own life since doing so would be interpreted as encouraging suicide. Euthanasia & suicide:- The comparison of suicide with euthanasia does not produce valid results. They are two distinct acts. For the sake of clarity we need to differentiate between euthanasia and suicide practices.
The definition from Oxford Dictionary16 describes suicide as purposeful self-destruction. The act of intentionally terminating life through selfimposed means constitutes suicide because people kill themselves because of depression and other reasons including failure to find love or a suitable job or in school. Since euthanasia is so similar to the idea of suicide, it might be assumed that all religions forbid it even if it is not defined in any texts. The basis for criminal responsibility in Indian law depends on intention. An action taken or not taken with no purpose, then it’s not denoted as a crime. According to Roman legal tradition the fundamental principle states that "Actus non facitreum nisi men sit rea" defines criminal conduct because of lacking intentional actions.
By implementing the aforementioned maxim, now it can be concluded that the accused is innocent of any crimes as the victim gave their consent to die. But a crucial question is whether consenting to someone's death releases the perpetrator from criminal responsibility. Euthanasia is not a crime if the response to this question is in the affirmative. On this point, Indian law is rather explicit. Under the law a person can claim immunity from legal responsibility through consent but he might assert "volenti non fit injuria" as his defense. The Indian Penal Code delivers an extensive interpretation of consent without any confusion to explain it. The Indian Penal Code establishes through Section 87 that consent cannot defend someone against legal punishment even when given in the first place.
The permit for 16 Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of current English ( 2000 ) ( sixth edition ), Oxfod University press. consent will not protect actions that result in death or severe injuries if these outcomes have been explicitly authorized. In Maruti Shripati Dubal case the Bombay High Court17 made distinctions between harmful death procedures and euthanasia and mercy killing through their decision. The court claims that the suicide was committed with the help of others. However, euthanasia refers to taking of life by involvement of other person's human activity. As a result, mercy killing cannot be compared to suicide. Regardless, of the circumstances surrounding the act, mercy killing is simply a murder.
The Bombay High Court noted, in a different case18 that suicide is by definition, an act of self-destruction or self-killing, act of ending one's own life without the support or assistance of another human being. Contrarily, euthanasia, often known as mercy killing, refers to and implies the involvement of another human agency in order to end a life. Therefore, mercy killing is not suicide. Both legally and factually, the two ideas are different. Euthanasia or compassion killing is simply homicide, regardless of the situation. This also involves the concept of assisted suicide, which is described as providing someone with the information, guidance, and means to take their own life in the hopes that they will be used for this purpose. The difference between active euthanasia and assisted suicide is that the former needs the person to purposefully end their own life.
Although a doctor performs active euthanasia, medical personnel may provide support, but the patient still ends their own life. "Doctor assisted suicide" describes circumstances where a doctor helps a patient take their own life. The Supreme Court of India categorically ruled in the Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab19 case that physician aided suicide and euthanasia are prohibited in our nation. However, Court gave the guidelines established mentioned and established in the Airedale case20 by House of Lords, wherein House of Lords found that in some cases and sometimes it would be legal to withdraw life-supporting equipment after a wellinformed advice given by a doctor because doing so it will permit the patient who is not in a capable to recover, to pass away in a normal way, without any obligation to prolong life remaining.
17 Maruti Shripati Dubal v State of Maharashtra; 987 Cri.L. J 743, (Bomb)
18 Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v Union of India, 1995 Cri. L. J. 95 (Bomb)
19 1996 (2) SCC 648 AIR 1996 SC 946.
20 Airdale NHS trust v Bland, 1993 (1) All ER 821 (HL).
Case Laws: In State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal, the Bombay High Court considered for the first time whether the right to die is protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Bombay High Court ruled that Section 309 of the IPC was unconstitutional since Article 21, which protects the right to live, also ensures the freedom to die. According to the HC, everyone should be allowed to end their life whenever they so choose. However, in Chenna Jagadeshwar v. State of A. P, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that since Section 309 of the IPC is constitutional, the right to die is not a basic right as defined by Article 21. A Supreme Court bench in P. Rathinam v. Union of India upheld the Bombay High Court's decision in the Maruti Sripati Dubal case, holding that an individual has the right to die and declaring Section 309 of the IPC to be unconstitutional.
To his detriment, disadvantage, or dislike, a person cannot be made to exercise his right to life. In order to humanise our penal laws, the Court stated in its justification for its ruling that Section 309 of the IPC need to be removed from the Statute Book. It is a cruel and ridiculous clause that could lead to punishing someone who has endured suffering and would otherwise be subjected to shame for not killing himself. A five-judge Supreme Court bench overturned P. Rathinam's appeal in Gian Kaur v.
State of Punjab, ruling that the "right to life" under Article 21 does not include the "right to die. " Any component of life that gives it formality can be inserted into Article 21 of the Constitution, but not the aspects that extinguish it. This makes it unreasonable for life to continue, which would mean that the right itself would be expunged. Suicide is an unnatural way to end or extinction of life, which is incompatible with the idea of the right to life, which is a natural existence guaranteed by Article 21. Article 21 of the Constitution can include any facet of life that lends it formality, but not the elements that put it out. This renders the continuation of life irrational, so expunging the right itself.
The concept of the right to life, which is a natural existence protected by Article 21, is incompatible with suicide since it is an unnatural manner to stop or extinction of life. “The decision to remove life support must be made by the spouse, parents, or other close family members; if none of them are present, the next friend may make the decision. The patient's attending physician may also take it. Nonetheless, the choice must to be made honestly and in the patient's best interests. ” Conclusion and Suggestions: Conclusion: In the present era euthanasia is an alarming issue where we have both type of people, first, the one who support it and, second type of people those who object its implementation. The one who favor legalizing it emphasis on how sometime the condition becomes so worst for some of the patients, that bringing death is some sort of relief for them.
Meanwhile, another class of people is also present too who are against legalizing euthanasia whether passive or active, voluntary or involuntary. It is very much important to open the doors, of ethical values, and also moral values in order to create an environment which is very friendly for the patients suffering from an acute pain and suffering, or for those patients who are in (pvs) persistent vegetative-state. The responsibility to provide equitable degree of health care if the same is taken by the State, then the majority of supporters supporting euthanasia will reconsider their argument. When all other ways is closed, then only euthanasia must be resorted. The law makers have to study the entire background and the socio legal situations to give the same in Indian perspective.
The Supreme Court has taken into account the underlying motivations of those who failed to take active euthanasia into consideration. The Indian Supreme Court has approved passive euthanasia and created legislation outlining its parameters. The highest court also supported the creation of a commission to oversee the practice of mercy killing. Suggestions: The following recommendations are necessary in order to highlight the appropriate use of euthanasia:
1. It is urgently necessary to examine the laws pertaining to euthanasia and to enact laws
that specify the appropriate procedures for saving patients who wish to live despite their suffering.
2. In order to relieve their families and relatives of the burden of their terminal sickness,
sufferers will receive financial help.
3. In order to help them make decisions when dealing with these patients, doctors should
receive training on how to employ the newest medical research and technology.
4. Strong doctor-patient relationships are crucial for fostering moral and ethical
principles among medical professionals, who will go above and beyond to save the life of a patient in excruciating pain. These patients ought to be allowed the option to choose between life and death rather than being forced to die.