| Yashi Shrivastava | Assistant Professor | Career College of Law, Bhopal | yashishrivastava@careercollegeindia.com |
Abstract
Because assisted suicide and euthanasia fall under human rights that have been universally respected for centuries, they have been debated over history. But the concept of euthanasia being an acceptable way to die raises issues with ethics, morality, and society. It is hard to perceive death in a positive light because it is loss. In addition, the term “euthanasia” has been linked more to murder than to a generous and compassionate act because of various historical events, such as the Nazi experiments. Following newer texts, euthanasia is the act of accelerating a patient’s death who suffers from an incurable or terminal condition with the aim of eradicating them from unnecessary pain through the employment or avoidance of professional means. Euthanasia has evoked several controversial discussions over the years. It is a recurring question that is traced to traditional wisdom. The humanist and humane values are the basis of this idea. A universal right is “right to life,” as described in Art. 21 of the Constitution. But there are more things to be human than to breathe. Rather, the emphasis is on dying dignified. This area has undergone great change due to the phenomenon of dying with dignity. India lacks a specific law concerning euthanasia. However, a court ruling in India has legalized passive euthanasia.
Keywords: Euthanasia, Wisdom, terminal illness, and compassionate principles
Meaning of Euthanasia & its origin
Because “eu” translates to “good” and “thanatos” translates to “death” in Greek, the term “euthanasia” translates to “good death.” As we can see below, the term for this phrase has changed throughout the years. Previously, it was thought to be a means to eliminate individuals who were perceived to be living less honourably. The phrase “assisted” suicide describes the situation when the patient kills himself by taking a deadly substance, but the aid has been provided under the auspices of medical care.
Euthanasia is the act by a third party of injecting a patient with a lethal dose to end his agonizing and irreversible suffering. Most typically, a physician’s aim is to end suffering out of sympathy. Euthanasia is done by physicians and is again classified as “active” and “passive.” Active euthanasia is intentionally taking the life of a patient by a doctor. Passive euthanasia is withholding or withdrawing therapy that is required to preserve life. Active euthanasia exists in three forms. Voluntary euthanasia is one form of active euthanasia, i.e., it is done on the request of the patient. Euthanasia, which is also known as “mercy killing,” is a practice of taking a patient to die to alleviate their suffering even when they have not requested to be attended to. Despite that, non voluntary euthanasia happens when a patient cannot provide consent.
Historical Background of Euthanasia
The concept of euthanasia is very old. It is believed that euthanasia initially emerged in fifth-century B.C. in ancient Greece and Rome. Since Socrates thought that nothing was to be feared in death, euthanasia was even becoming more widely accepted among liberals in ancient Greece. Newborns with severe birth defects were being killed in the Greek city of Sparta. The Hippocratic Oath, an ethical standard by which physicians swore not to advise or even administer poisoning to anyone, was the origin of the first major opposition to euthanasia. However, many healthcare workers ignored the Hippocratic oath and continued to take patients’ lives in a bid to end them of terrible and long suffering.
Euthanasia was prohibited and considered a sin throughout Europe during the Middle Ages. Christian doctrine prohibited euthanasia on the basis that no human is allowed to take their own life because God has ordained death for man. The human body was thought to be God’s temple, and that to annihilate it would be a sin. Thomas More initially promoted euthanasia in his famous book “Utopia” during the 15th to 17th centuries.
But then he explained that the patient should agree if the patient was in such an excruciating condition of pain and could not be cured. Besides, the Ministers and Judges urge the disabled not to be an encumbrance to others in their workplaces. The earliest law regarding the topic was enacted in Russia during the 18th century and minimized the penalty for individuals who ended the life of a patient suffering from an incurable disease. In addition, active euthanasia was legalized in the eighteenth century by the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin, which questioned whether God is the supreme creator of all living beings. Even while proponents of euthanasia started to emerge in the early 17th and 18th centuries, their influence was fleeting. The late eighteenth century saw a sustained opposition to the idea of euthanasia.
In the latter half of the 1930s, pro-euthanasia groups began to appear in the US and England, and euthanasia once more gained popularity. In 1935, the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society was founded by C. Killick Millard, a systematic drive to legalise euthanasia began. But the society’s bill and a subsequent motion on the same issue were both turned down by the House of Lords in 1950. Attitudes towards euthanasia were however changed by World War 2. Hitler and the Nazis employed euthanasia, gassing, administering high doses of medication, and starving hundreds of thousands of individuals to kill them. Ultimately, euthanasia was banned in America because everyone fell out of favor with it.
During the later part of the 20th century and the initial decade of the 21st, euthanasia legalisation became a real phenomenon. Washington and Montana trailed Oregon in 1998 as the initial US states to legalise euthanasia. The Netherlands became the initial nation to legalise euthanasia in 2002, then Belgium soon after.
Types of Euthanasia
Active Euthanasia
The purposeful act of causing a person to die, typically by giving them a lethal drug or performing an intended act, is referred to as active euthanasia. It involves the express decision to end the life of a patient and the direct involvement of another individual, often a healthcare professional, with the aim of alleviating their pain or satisfying their explicit wish. Active euthanasia
Its supporters argue that at times, it is a morally acceptable and humane choice. They argue that it provides individuals with the autonomy to choose how they wish to die, especially in instances of agonizing pain or fatal illness.Active euthanasia is considered a swift, clear-cut way of relieving suffering, providing a sympathetic, dignified option to anyone who has to endure severe physical or mental suffering.
Those who oppose active euthanasia raise several moral concerns, though. They argue that intentionally ending someone’s life is contrary to medical ethics, which are focused on preserving and promoting life, and it is also a violation of the holiness of life. They raise concerns about potential abuses and slippery slopes, in which the practice will extend beyond its initially intended limits and harm individuals who are already vulnerable. The lawfulness of active euthanasia varies across countries and legal systems. Some countries, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia, and Canada, have legislation under which, in certain conditions, allow or legalise certain forms of active euthanasia. Yet many other countries only allow passive euthanasia and consider active euthanasia to be illegal or restricted.
We should remember that choices and discussions regarding active euthanasia involve complicated ethical, legal, cultural, and moral challenges. Strong safeguards and legislation to maintain the independence and health of individuals involved should be at the center of these discussions, coupled with reflective consideration, compassion, and respect for other positions.
When a person practice active euthanasia, a doctor or some other authorized person actively administers the action that kills the patient. This might involve administering a lethal dose of medicine or taking the treatment to kill, like injecting the drug or using a device to help the victim die.
Various countries and jurisdictions differ in what they find moral and legal about active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is illegal in some countries, while it is legal in others. There is extensive debate over active euthanasia, and most civilizations have different thoughts.
The landmark case that involved the constitutionality of Section 309 of the IPC was Gian Kaur State of Punjab. In this case, Gian Kaur and her husband were convicted under section 306 of the IPC of abetting their daughter-in-law, Kulwant Kaur, to commit suicide. The appellants argued that, given the dubious legality of Section 309 of the IPC & upholding the enforcement of fundamental rights granted in Article 21 of the Constitution, should be considered aiding and abetting suicide. Also, they argued that punishment under Section 306 of the IPC is an equal infringement of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court unequivocally declared the right to die as unconstitutional, upholding the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the IPC. Also, it was held that anything and everything which leads to life vanishing is incompatible with the right to life. The Supreme Court established a difference here between the natural extinction of life and the one that is not. The Court clarified that the right to an unnatural death which minimizes one’s life term should not be confused with the right to a dignified death at the end of one’s natural life. In other words, dying with dignity in whatever form does not mean an unnatural termination of life that truncates an individual’s natural lifespan.
Passive Euthanasia
The practice of withholding medical treatment or life-supporting interventions from a patient who is suffering from a terminal condition or incurable affliction for the purpose of allowing him or her to die naturally is referred to as passive euthanasia. It involves deciding if and when to initiate medical interventions such as artificial breathing, feeding tubes, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation that are deemed burdensome, futile, or disproportionate to the expected outcome. Passive euthanasia doesn’t involve direct intervention to terminate life, unlike active euthanasia. Instead of intervening to prolong the life of the patient, passive euthanasia allows the condition or illness to run its course naturally over time. It is important to note that the decision to forego or withdraw treatment in passive euthanasia cases must be made in accordance with legal and ethical standards, which vary by country and jurisdiction.
The patient, family, or legal representative might have to give their consent on occasion before the decision can be made. In withholding interventions that would only exacerbate the patient’s pain without providing any actual relief, passive euthanasia attempts to uphold the patient’s autonomy and
avert unnecessary suffering. Individuals belief that they are experiencing liberty for making choices for their own life, such as the choice to end their suffering if they are suffering from an ailment that is too agonizing to suffer, is one of the central arguments in favor of euthanasia. Respecting autonomy is a crucial element of ethics and personal liberty. The major distinction between passive euthanasia and direct delivery of lethal chemicals or intentional acts lies in the fact that the former involves the withholding or withdrawal of medical treatments. Refusal to initiate certain medical treatments, withholding or withdrawing artificial sustenance and hydration, or deactivating life support are some examples of passive euthanasia.
In the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India in India, a nurse was sexually assaulted and choked, putting her in a vegetative state for 42 years. The Indian Supreme Court addressed the issue of passive euthanasia in 2011 in reference to Shanbaug’s case. The court allowed life support to be withdrawn, including the feeding tube, but also issued regulations to ensure proper safety measures.
The case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India is concerning Passive Euthanasia in which the Supreme Court of India, gave judgment on the constitutional validity of passive euthanasia and the right to die with dignity in the landmark. To convey that they do not wish to receive medical treatment if they become terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state, individuals may make “living wills” or “advance directives,” which were upheld by the court as a legal concept. The court held that as long as proper precautions are exercised and a medical board permits so, life support can be removed.
Status of Euthanasia in India
This fundamental right is ensured in India through Art. 21 of the Constitution. If the Right to Life, which is integral to human life, is curtailed, then life loses its meaning or purpose. Along with such freedom is the freedom from being slaughtered by anyone or anything, including the government. Right from the time of birth until the death of the individual, this right holds good. To live with dignity is another aspect of the right to life. In this, it becomes crucial to ascertain whether or not the right to die with dignity falls within the concept of living with dignity. Indian courts have addressed this matter on numerous occasions.
The petitioner in Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra was afflicted with numerous brain injuries due to an accident which ultimately led to mental instability. It was later found that the petitioner had not been suffering from schizophrenia. Besides this, he had also tried to commit suicide on one instance for which he was prosecuted under Indian Penal Code section 309.
The Bombay High Court held that every right has its pros and cons and that the right to live, which comprises the right to die, is one of the fundamental liberties enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since Section 309 of the IPC contravened Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution, the Court went to the extent of holding the section to be unconstitutional. Within this ruling, the Court finally ruled that the right to die was not unconstitutional, but rather rare and infrequent, after enumerating numerous situations wherein an individual might opt to end their life.
Yet, in Chenna Jagadeeshwar & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that Article 21 of the Constitution does not shield the right to die. The Supreme Court also posed the same legal issue in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, wherein it adopted a same line of approach as in the MarutiShripatiDubalcase. In accordance with a Supreme Court ruling, the right to live also entails the right to die. Further, it was put forward that in an effort to humanise the criminal laws, Section 309 of the IPC must be repealed because it is an irrational and harsh provision. Therefore, it was determined that since Section 309 of the IPC was not in conformity with Article 21 of the Constitution, it was ultra vires.
Global Scenario of Euthanasia
Legal is the term used for regulations, laws sanctioned by the sovereign to safeguard citizens’ interests. To enact these regulations, you have to take into consideration the decision of the court. These provide the basic foundation for legal jurisprudence. They encompass the Acts, the regulations, and state documents in their entirety. The decisions of Apex Courts are always considered authoritative and binding upon state’s lower courts. The decisions rendered by the court are considered precedents. When they are faced with similar situations to rule, they act as a guiding factor for the judges. They play a major role in codification of any statute. Differences concerning euthanasia can be seen in decisions given by the House of Lords in England. They are not all of the same mind. It reflects how their decisions have evolved with altering cultural realities and social norms. Either illegal in some countries or legal in others. Euthanasia is currently legal in countries such as Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands.
Colombia, Switzerland, Albania, and Oregon, Washington, New Mexico, Vermont, and Montana of the US are some of those which permit assisted suicide. The Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg are countries which permit assisted suicide or euthanasia. Three important reasons have been given as to why euthanasia is permitted now.
- Individualization, or the freedom to self-govern
- A reduction in the stigma of dying.
- Increasing a terminally ill individual’s lifespan is not the sole rightful priority of medical intervention.
Global statutory provisions that regulate the right to life, and therefore euthanasia, regulate issues relating to euthanasia. Some of the international documents of medical organizations are: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the Empathy of People Towards the Use of Biology and Medicine; Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine; Council of Europe Convention, 1997. All of these international documents are listed as follows: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950. While the 39th World Medical Assembly in Madrid adopted the Declaration on Euthanasia in 1987, euthanasia is not directly regulated by international law. Euthanasia is illegal in Ukraine today in all its forms, passive included. It must be noted that not only is euthanasia prohibited under existing Ukrainian legislation, but it is also considered to be a criminal offense under Criminal Code of Ukraine under Part 1 of Art. 115, punishable by a sentence of seven-to fifteen years in prison for intentional murder.
In assessing the current state of euthanasia legalisation throughout Europe, America, and Asia, one should remember that the legal enshrinement of the practice by some countries is an exception to the rule and not a global phenomenon. The legality of both active and passive euthanasia in Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, various US states, and Australia shows that this is indeed the case. Although not categorically prohibited, Germany, Spain, France
Albania, and Israel do not support passive euthanasia; however, these countries oppose the practice of active euthanasia.
Conclusion
Overall, while there are valid concerns regarding the passing of euthanasia laws in India, there is a need to acknowledge that end-of-life care is a sensitive and complex issue that warrants earnest consideration and discussion. It is important to maintain the discussion on this issue and endeavor to identify a solution that achieves a middle ground between patients’ needs and societal interests. In short, euthanasia is an intricately & sensitive issue which must be given careful thought in regard to social, moral, and legal aspects. India has achieved success in legalising euthanasia; however, other hindrances must be resolved, including religious beliefs, concerns regarding misuse, and the need for stricter laws.
REFERENCES:
Books:
- The Assisted Suicide& Euthanasia by Neil M. Gorsuc.
- Euthanasia A Doctrine of Death by Sourav Banerjee, Blue Rose Publishers.
- Death with Dignity: A Delusion or Dilemma by Dr.RavendraMadhavi, Asia Law House.
Online Sources
- https:// ijirl. com/ wp-content/ uploads/ 2022/ 01/ POSITION-OF- EUTHANASIA-IN-INDIA-LEGAL-PERSPECTIVE.pdf
- https://tinyurl.com/Euthanasia-History-in-India
- https://tinyurl.com/Legalizing-Euthanasia