Does a person who is very sick and not going to get better have the right to ask for their treatment to be stopped or for a drug to end their suffering? Can the family of someone who has been in a coma for a long time, with no chance of getting better, ask for their life-support machines to be turned off?
Euthanasia, or mercy killing, is a highly debated and ethically complex issue around the world. In India, the discussion involves legal, moral, and human rights considerations. Euthanasia can be divided into two types:
-
Active euthanasia means to “Actively” do something to end a person's life. Example - Lethal Injection
-
Passive euthanasia means to “Not do” something which is necessary to keep the person alive, i.e. something that the person is dependent on. Example - Withdrawal of life support
Legal Framework for Euthanasia in India
In India, active euthanasia is illegal and treated as homicide under the Indian Penal Code. However, passive euthanasia has been conditionally accepted due to key court rulings rather than specific laws.
Key Judicial Rulings
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996):
This is a significant case regarding euthanasia in India. Gian Kaur and her husband were convicted for abetting the suicide of their daughter-in-law and argued that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes the right to die. The Supreme Court rejected this, clarifying that Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty but not the right to end one's life. The Court emphasized that the right to life is a natural right, and suicide, as an unnatural termination of life, is inconsistent with it.
The case reaffirmed the legality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes attempted suicide, and highlighted that euthanasia involves different considerations. The judgment indicated that permitting euthanasia requires specific legislation and cannot be inferred from Article 21.
Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011):
The case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India (2011) is crucial for understanding euthanasia in India. Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse, was in a vegetative state for 37 years after a violent attack. Journalist Pinki Virani filed a plea for passive euthanasia on her behalf.
The Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug under strict conditions. The court stated that passive euthanasia could be approved only with the High Court's permission, based on the recommendations of a medical board. This judgment emphasized careful scrutiny and judicial oversight to protect the patient's best interests.
Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018):
The Supreme Court's decision in Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018) broadened the legal framework for passive euthanasia. The court recognized the right to die with dignity as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
This ruling legalized passive euthanasia and introduced living wills (advance directives). A living will allows a person to state their preferences for medical treatment if they become terminally ill or unable to communicate their decisions. The court set strict guidelines to ensure that living wills are verified by a medical board and receive judicial approval.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
In India, the legal rules for euthanasia are mainly shaped by court decisions rather than laws. This approach highlights the sensitive and complex nature of the issue, balancing the right to life with the right to die with dignity.
Ethical considerations are central to the debate on euthanasia. Supporters argue that allowing individuals to choose a dignified death can relieve suffering and respect personal autonomy. Opponents worry that allowing euthanasia could lead to misuse and undermine the value of life.
Recent Development: Delhi High Court Ruling
A recent case in the Delhi High Court has brought euthanasia back into the spotlight. The court dismissed a plea from a 30-year-old man who had been bedridden since 2013 due to severe head injuries, seeking passive euthanasia.
Justice Subramonium Prasad's decision highlighted the strict conditions under which passive euthanasia can be legally allowed in India. The man had a severe brain injury and was in a permanent vegetative state with quadriplegia. His family, unable to care for him due to old age, sought the formation of a Medical Board to examine his condition for passive euthanasia.
In rejecting the plea, Justice Prasad referred to various Supreme Court judgments, reiterating that active euthanasia is not allowed. The court noted that the man was not on any life support and could sustain himself without external aid. Despite sympathizing with the family's situation, the court concluded that the legal requirements for passive euthanasia were not met in this case.
Justice Prasad observed, "The Petitioner is not on any life support system, and the Petitioner is surviving without any external aid. While the Court sympathizes with the parents, as the Petitioner is not terminally ill, this Court cannot intervene and allow consideration of a prayer that is legally untenable."
Conclusion
India's legal stance on euthanasia is cautious and conservative, reflecting a balance between the sanctity of life and the right to die with dignity. The Supreme Court's framework allows passive euthanasia under strict and well-defined conditions, ensuring that decisions are carefully reviewed and monitored.
The recent Delhi High Court decision underscores the strict conditions required for euthanasia to be legally permissible, highlighting the importance of judicial oversight and ethical considerations. As society and medical practices evolve, the discussion on euthanasia in India will likely continue to grow, requiring ongoing reflection on its ethical, legal, and human rights aspects.