Introduction
One issue that is widely debated and highly contentious in the public sphere is euthanasia. The idea of euthanasia is a topic of intense debate in the legal and public spheres. On moral and theological reasons, there is a lot of discussion and argument about euthanasia. Euthanasia may be viewed by some as the murdering of people or the taking of lives, but it is more than that. This essay delves deeply into the study of euthanasia.
Meaning of Euthanasia
By researching the etymology of the word, one might better comprehend the meaning of euthanasia. The words “euthanasia” and “Thanatos,” which mean “death” and “well,” respectively, are derived from two Greek words. Euthanasia so generally refers to a good death. It is the act of giving a person a good death when they would otherwise be doomed to a horrible death. Euthanasia is the act of giving a person who is suffering from a terminal illness the option to pass away quietly and painlessly. Therefore, euthanasia enables a person to put an end to their suffering and pass away in a dignified manner if they are suffering greatly or for any other reason.
On the basis of the method of performance, euthanasia can be classified into two types:-
- Active Euthanasia – In a sort of active euthanasia, a person in pain at the end of their life is put to death by an outside force. The external intervention could take the form of giving a fatal injection or knowingly ingesting a lethal cocktail of medications. In cases of active euthanasia, external intervention results in death rather than natural causes.
- Passive Euthanasia – A form of passive euthanasia is when a person is permitted to pass away from natural causes without any outside assistance. The treatment that was keeping the individual alive is purposefully stopped during passive euthanasia so that the person can pass away naturally.
On the basis of permission, there are two categories of euthanasia:
- Willful Euthanasia- When a person who is to be euthanized is capable of giving their agreement that action is referred to as voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia allows a person to end their life of their own free will in order to spare themselves of the pain and suffering associated with a terminal illness.
- Non-voluntary Euthanasia- When a person is unable to give his or her own consent for this process and someone else decides to carry it out, this is considered non-voluntary euthanasia. This is simply due to the fact that the individual who is going to undergo euthanasia isn’t in a position or capable of giving the necessary consent.
Concept of Euthanasia in the world
On a worldwide scale, various nations hold divergent opinions regarding the idea of euthanasia and its legalization. Euthanasia is viewed as a noble way to end the pain and suffering of a person who is terminally ill in many different nations. Euthanasia is subject to various kinds of religious and moral standards in other nations. Numerous NGOs and progressive medical groups have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to influence the euthanasia policies of the governments in various nations.
Countries like Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Australia, etc. have allowed active euthanasia.
For carrying out euthanasia, numerous innovative techniques are being developed. For instance, the “Sarco Pod” is a suicide device invented in Switzerland that offers a painless assisted suicide option to those who wish to use it. Switzerland has authorized active euthanasia, and this technology has been approved for public usage there after passing legal scrutiny.
Concept of Euthanasia in India
Since there is no clear legislation on the subject to date for either legalizing or regulating euthanasia in India, the situation with regard to euthanasia in that country is not very clear. People who wish to have themselves put to death are going outside to those nations where it is lawful because euthanasia is not authorized in India. Euthanasia tourism is a new word for this practice, which is slowly becoming more common. An Indian Express article from August 2022 detailed a Bangalore woman who had petitioned the Delhi High Court to prevent her friend from traveling to Europe because she believed he was going there to have himself put to death.
A small step in the right direction was made, though, when the Law Commission recommended repealing Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860, which punished suicide attempts. At the time, this Indian penal law provision was heavily criticized because it is thought immoral to punish someone for trying to commit suicide but failing because of the extreme mental stress they are already under. There are several judicial developments too on the subject matter.
Some important cases
In the 1985 case of Maruti Dubal v. State of Maharashtra, the topic was first subjected to judicial review. In this case, the Honorable Bombay High Court declared that article 21 of the Indian Constitution’s provision of the right to life also includes the right to death. The Indian Penal Code of 1860’s Section 309, which punishes suicide attempts, was also declared illegal by the court.
A division bench of the Supreme Court of India upheld the Bombay High Court’s judgment in the Maruti Dubal case in 1994 in P. Rathinam v. Union of India.
However, the matter was not resolved because, barely two years after the Supreme Court’s ruling in P. Rathinam, the identical issue was brought up before the court once more in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab. In this instance, a five-judge Supreme Court constitutional panel overturned the division bench’s decision in the P. Rathinam case. According to the Indian Constitution’s Article 21, the right to life does not include the right to die, the court said. One ought to lead a natural existence. The legality of Section 309 of the IPC was likewise upheld by the court.
A retired 80-year-old man sought the honorable high court of Kerala in 2000 to request permission to end his life since he believed he had lived his life properly and had taken care of all of his family’s needs. He was well aware that it is against the law to commit suicide, so he wanted to set an example by distinguishing between suicide and voluntary death based on the motivations. A retired principal sought the same thing after being inspired by this and going to the Supreme Court. Since suicide remains suicide, regardless of the reasons for doing it, the honorable Kerala High Court denied both petitions, raising the prospect of future abuse.
A significant development in India’s understanding of euthanasia is the case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India. Aruna worked as a nurse in Mumbai’s King Edward Memorial (KEM) hospital. She was attacked by a sweeper and strangled with a dog chain in 1973, which resulted in brain damage from a lack of oxygen. Since the incident, she has remained in a vegetative condition and has never fully healed. She is fed through a tube to stay alive. Aruna’s right to life with dignity is being violated by her prolonged existence, according to a petition submitted to the respected Supreme Court, which calls for her to be put to death.
The honorable Supreme Court refused to permit Ms. Aruna’s medical care to be discontinued. However, the court debated the idea of euthanasia for a long time before deciding to approve passive euthanasia. It was determined that the high court, acting as the “Parens Patriae” concept, or “parent of the nation,” where the court can intervene and act as a guardian, is the last arbiter of what is best for the patient. The honorable court established a number of procedures to be followed when requesting authorization to carry out passive euthanasia.
Conclusion
In order to provide relief to those who truly need to end their suffering while also allowing them to do so within the parameters of the law and with dignity, I would like to conclude by saying that more and more nations should legalize euthanasia. The boundary between euthanasia and suicide is quite narrow, so it needs to be properly legalized in order to prevent abuse. We must make sure that euthanasia does not serve as a cover for suicide. Euthanasia should be seen as a progressive action that should not be constrained by morality and religious principles and should be viewed as a hallmark of a modern bearable society.
This article is written by Akshansh Mishra,3rd year law student of PSIT COLLEGE OF LAW, Kanpur.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN LEDROIT‘S WHATSAPP GROUP
