Life, Death And The Law - A Study Of Euthanasia
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
LIFE, DEATH AND THE LAW: A STUDY OF EUTHANASIA
P. Sindhu, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
ABSTRACT
The practice of euthanasia involves assisting in the death of a terminally ill patient to alleviate their suffering and demonstrate compassion. There are both theoretical and practical reasons why euthanasia is a contentious issue. The topic’s evolution and acceptance are changing. This revelation raises essential questions about bioethics and medicine. A more just and ethical connection between healthcare practitioners and patients with terminal illnesses has emerged due to medical practice advances, allowing for the extension of life expectancy. Along with influencing ethical acceptability, it has impacted societal and individual perspectives. Emotions may run high while discussing euthanasia. Several prominent figures in the fields of law and medicine hold the view that assisted suicide should be lawful in scarce circumstances.
A small fraction of society also sees euthanasia as assisted suicide. Through this paper, the author intends to understand the concept of Euthanasia in India. Additionally, the author also analyses the jurisprudential aspect of euthanasia through this paper.
Introduction
A right, in general parlance, is freedom, something one is entitled to merely because one is a
human. Since humans are considered rational and entitled to human dignity, equality and privacy, human beings are founded on the principle of individual dignity and, as such, should be allowed to choose to die in a dignified manner. Every human being deserves respect and, as such, should be accorded to them1. The right to life is an inherent right of every individual. This is because life emanates from the natural existence of every human being, and thus, it is universal in its application. The sanctity of life has been sacrosanct; therefore, it must be treated with utmost value, equality and respect without any sense of inequality in treatment. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution2 guarantees every person the right to life and personal liberty3. This naturally raises the question of whether a person has the right to die. This gives rise to the concept of euthanasia.
The practice of euthanasia involves assisting in the death of a terminally ill patient to alleviate their suffering and demonstrate. Euthanasia aims to strike a balance between the right to live, which is a fundamental right guaranteed through the constitution of India and the right to live with dignity. The emergence of euthanasia is aimed at protecting human dignity while ensuring that there is no violation of human rights. Euthanasia is broadly of two types: active and passive. Active euthanasia is a process where the person is injected with poison or is directly made to consume a poisonous drug. On the other hand, withholding medical cases or life support from terminally sick patients to let them pass away is referred to as passive euthanasia4.
Indian courts, however, allow for passive euthanasia in situations where the individual is kept alive through mechanical means, and the removal of such mechanical means would result in the death of such individual. Hence, the courts, while deciding matters relating to euthanasia, 1 Victoria A Adeleke, Euthanasia and Assisted Sucide: Sweetnedd in Bitterness, IDJ, Volume 4, Issue 1 (2023), pp. 41-54.
2 INDIA CONST. Article 21.
3 Vidur Laddhad, An Investigation into the Complexity of Euthanasia: Research on the End of Suffering, 4 JUS CORPUS L.J. 219 (December 2023 - February 2024). 4 Payal Prajapat, Euthanasia: A Choice for Autonomy or a Slippery Slope?, 4 JUS CORPUS L.J. [75] (September- November 2023)
have to take utmost caution. The deciding body, usually the courts, has to very carefully analyse all the medical aspects of the individual while allowing euthanasia to such individuals. Judicial Analysis of Euthanasia Euthanasia as a concept did not arise directly out of the Indian Constitution. The Indian Constitution recognises the right to life as a fundamental right5. Hence, the early decisions of the judiciary were more conservative and hence did not recognise the concept of Euthanasia. The talks on the right to die started in State v. Sanjay Kumar6, wherein the Delhi High Court said that Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code7 should be discontinued from the statute. However, it did not formally recognise euthanasia. In the case of P. Rathinam and Ors.
v Union of India,8 the Supreme Court acknowledged that apart from the multiple judicial and legal thinking on the subject relating to justification and permissibility of punishing a man for attempting to commit suicide, there are proponents of the view that euthanasia (Mercy Killing) should be permitted by law. Here, the Supreme Court also stated that in euthanasia, a third person is either actively or passively involved, about whom it may be said that he aids or abets the killing of another person. The Supreme Court made a distinction between an attempt of a person to take his life and the action of some others to bring to an end the life of a third person. Such a distinction can be made on principle and is conceptually permissible. It further added that passive euthanasia should be permitted as long as there is consent from the patient or the near relatives of the patient.
However, in India, Passive non-voluntary euthanasia was first recognised in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug9. The Supreme Court here not only deeply analysed the need for the recognition of euthanasia, but it also discussed the possible concerns if euthanasia were allowed in the country. The right to life is a fundamental right of every individual. However, the life one lives should be decent. If the person is in a vegetative condition, then they are not leading a life with dignity. Hence, euthanasia creates conflict between the right to life and the right to live with dignity.
5 INDIA CONST. Article 21.
6 State v. Sanjay Kumar, 1985 Cr LJ 931
7 The Indian Penal Code, § 309, No 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860.
8 P. Rathinam and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (26.04.1994 - SC) : MANU/SC/0433/1994
9 Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (07.03.2011 - SC) : MANU/SC/0176/2011
Recently, the Delhi High Court declined the plea of a 30-year-old man who suffered severe brain damage euthanasia. The rationale of the High Court is that the person was not being kept alive mechanically. The Court, after perusal of facts, relied on Common Cause v. Union Of India10, where it was held that the right not to take a life-saving treatment by a person who is competent to make an informed decision should not be covered by the concept of euthanasia as it is commonly understood. However, a decision to withdraw life-saving treatment by a patient who is competent to make the decision, as well as by a patient who is not competent to make the decision, can be termed passive euthanasia, which is lawful and legally permissible in this country. Jurisprudential Analysis of Euthanasia Different schools of thought have a different understanding of the concept of Euthanasia.
John Stuart Mill’s Theory of utilitarianism mainly emphasises euthanasia from the concept of pleasure and pain. Mill argues that whatever action is done by men generally, whether constituting a person’s life or death, shall lead to happiness. Hence, happiness is the sole factor for consideration in this school of thought. This utilitarianism theory of euthanasia primarily emphasises that since people have sovereignty and self-determination over themselves, they should be able to make decisions accordingly. Individuals should be able to chase their happiness and avoid anything that causes them pain. This school further opines that the choice of life and death lies solely within an individual’s power and capacity. Hence, it is for an individual whose right to privacy should not be interfered with.
This theory further opines that euthanasia should only be explored when other options and remedies have been exhausted11. Additionally, the positivist school of thought that has attached many meanings to the term positivism. One among them is that the law should be separated from what law is and what law should be. The positivists do not deny that judges make the law. They also acknowledge the influence of ethical considerations of judges and legislators as a judge or legislator adopts a proposition when it is considered moral and just12. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution13 provides all persons the right to life and personal liberty. However, it is nearly impossible to
10 Common Cause v. Union Of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1.
11 UKEssays. (November 2018). Euthanasia And John Stuart Mills Theory On Utilitarianism Philosophy Essay. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/euthanasia-and-john-stuart-mills-theory-onutilitarianism-philosophy-essay.php?vref=1
12 VB COUTINHO, VB MAHAJAN’S JURISPRUDENCE & LEGAL THEORY, Sixth Edition, EBC, 2022
13 INDIA CONST. Article 21.
define the term life. Hence, the judiciary interprets this fundamental right to achieve the legislature’s intent. The judiciary interpreted that the right to life does not include the right to die or the right to commit suicide14. Holding that active euthanasia and assisted death are offences, the court has observed that non-voluntary passive euthanasia is permissible subject to certain conditions and safeguards15. Even the aspects of legal realism can be found in the concept of euthanasia. The concept of euthanasia is not explicitly mentioned in the laws of India. However, through cases like Aruna Shanbaug, the courts widened the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution16. The legal realists believe that the statute is at rest and the court must bring the statute into motion.
Even in the case of euthanasia, it is the responsibility of the courts to ensure that it is not exploited. Hence, the courts have to analyse the facts and circumstances of the case while passing the order of euthanasia to an individual. The courts have to analyse the vegetative status of the individual and additionally analyse if there are any medical treatments available which may cure the individual. Here, the courts rely on the experts’ opinions, which provide valuable opinions on the issue. The legalisation of euthanasia is in conflict with the legal principle and the professional ethics of doctors. On the one hand, doctors must save the dead and heal the wounded; people have only one life, and what they can do is try their best to save.
If doctors perform euthanasia for patients, it would break citizens’ trust in the profession because most people would disagree with being euthanised, even if a small number would do so voluntarily. In addition, the current level of medical care is still too limited to judge diseases’ complexity accurately. Doctors would inevitably make wrong diagnoses. The emergence of euthanasia may lead to the innocent death of some patients who can be cured. On the other hand, the supremacy of the right to life in Indian law can also explain the Indian government’s measures to protect people’s lives during times of need, even if it is mistaken for contempt for personal freedom. Euthanasia is not easily recognised by Indian law because it would break the existing legal framework17.
14 Gian Kaur v State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648: AIR 1996 SC 946
15 Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454
16 INDIA CONST. Article 21.
17 Liangxian Li, A jurisprudential analysis of the Euthanasia legality: based on a comparative study between China and other countries, Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciencea, Vol11, 2023
Conclusion The right to life is considered a fundamental right, especially in the laws relating to human rights. However, the ethical and legal landscape has changed significantly over the years. The controversy surrounding Aruna Shanbaug shed light on the intricate interplay between medical ethics and the law. The Judiciary was able to differentiate between active and passive euthanasia with the assistance of this instance. In India, only voluntary passive euthanasia is permissible. However, globally, even active euthanasia is seen in practice. Recently, a person named Ter Beek decided to voluntarily end her life by administering medications to the body. Countries like the Netherlands and Canada have policies that allow people to consider euthanasia to end their lives.
However, the persons who opt for euthanasia have to undergo some strict conditions and medical review Although untimely death is inhuman, it is far worse to live a life in misery, as in the case of Aruna Shanbaug. Hence, in such cases, the judiciary or the state must become the parens patriae and make decisions for the benefit of the individual. Since Euthanasia involves death, the decision must be made after exhausting all the available options to the patient. The right to a dignified life and a dignified death should be ensured to the individual. Jurisprudentially, euthanasia has a utility as it allows the individual to decide their death. It allows the person to die in a dignified manner. However, it further adds that all the available options have to be explored before euthanasia is opted.
Even the positivist theory suggests that the judiciary must interpret the law as intended by the legislature. Hence, the courts have to analyse the vegetative condition of the individual and decide if the individual has the right to live through medications best known to science or if it is beneficial for the individual to die in a dignified manner. The Supreme Court, however, in its recent decision, observed that the ryle tube is not a life support system. This raises questions about where to draw the line between hope and wishful thinking. Hence, it is high time to bring legal clarity to the difference between euthanasia and the withdrawal of futile life-sustaining interventions in India by involving medical and ethical experts.
Until such systemic gaps are addressed, one must educate oneself about the rights and the options available to them as a good quality of life and death belongs to everyone.
References Cases
1. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 45
2. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (07.03.2011 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0176/2011
3. Common Cause v. Union Of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1.
4. Gian Kaur v State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648: AIR 1996 SC 946
5. P. Rathinam and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (26.04.1994 - SC):
MANU/SC/0433/199
6. State v. Sanjay Kumar, 1985 Cr LJ 931
Statutes The Indian Penal Code, § 309, No 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860. Constitutional Provisions India Const. Article 21 India Const. Article 21. Research Papers and Articles
1. Liangxian Li, A jurisprudential analysis of the Euthanasia legality: based on a comparative
study between China and other countries, Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciencea, Vol11, 202
2. Payal Prajapat, Euthanasia: A Choice for Autonomy or a Slippery Slope?, 4 JUS CORPUS
L.J. [75] (September-November 2023)
3. UKEssays. (November 2018). Euthanasia And John Stuart Mills Theory On Utilitarianism
Philosophy Essay. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/euthanasia-and-john-stuart-mills-theory-onutilitarianism-philosophy-essay.php?vref=1
4. Victoria A Adeleke, Euthanasia and Assisted Sucide: Sweetnedd in Bitterness, IDJ, Volume
4, Issue 1 (2023), pp. 41-54.
5. Vidur Laddhad, An Investigation into the Complexity of Euthanasia: Research on the End
of Suffering, 4 JUS CORPUS L.J. 219 (December 2023 - February 2024). Books
1. VB Coutinho, VB Mahajan’s Jurisprudence & Legal Theory, Sixth Edition, EBC, 2022.
2. Mahendra Pal Singh, V. N. Shukla’s Constitution of India, Fourteenth Edition, EBC, 2023.