Academic Article by- Anuj Vishwakarma
Introduction-
Euthanasia is an act or practice of painlessly ending the life of patients suffering from painful and incurable disorders and ailments by permitting them to die either through medical activities such as giving them an overdose of painkillers or by withholding their artificial life supports. Euthanasia has been a topic of moral, legal, and philosophical rights for a very long time. The crux of the debate resides with the competing rights; the right to life and the right to choose a dignified death. The supporters of euthanasia plead that a person has a right to choose a dignified death when he is not in a position to live a dignified life. They believe that it is better to give a person a dignified death who is, in any case, going to die after a long period of suffering and pain. On the other hand, the opposers of euthanasia argue that taking a person’s life is in violation of the right to life provided to him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They are generally of the view that the person has a right to live a dignified life and ending his life through Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) infringes his right to live.
Types of Euthanasia-
Euthanasia is generally classified on two basis- one is active and passive euthanasia and alternatively voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia.
i) Active Euthanasia- It is a means of putting to end a person’s life who is suffering from an incurable disease, disorder, or ailment by a medical practitioner by an act such as giving him an overdose of painkillers.
ii) Passive Euthanasia- It is a means of ending a person’s life by removing the artificial life-support from the patient.
Classification on the basis of intention-
i) Voluntary Euthanasia- When the patient who is suffering asks the medical practitioner consciously to be killed.
ii) Non-voluntary Euthanasia- When the patient is in a vegetative state and unable to make decisions, the concerned person asks for the PAT of the suffering person.
iii) Involuntary Euthanasia- When a person is either not asked before being killed or his life is taken against his will.
Complexities in the matter-
The supporters of euthanasia argue that it is sensible to let persons choose dignified deaths for themselves. The advocates of euthanasia emphasize that when a person suffering from a terminal disease can't even take care of himself, the question of a dignified life is a far cry. In that case, it will be better if he is allowed to end his life as Article 21 speaks for a dignified life. They also argue that the right to live with dignity under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity and a person who is unable to live his life with dignity should have an option to end his life in a dignified manner. However, the opposers of euthanasia point out that dying an unnatural death is not a dignified death under the provisions of Article 21. The court in the case of Gian Kaur held that a person has a right to live a dignified life and it also includes the right to die with dignity. But here, the right to die means dying a natural death and not unnatural deaths such as suicide. Therefore, Article 21 nowhere mentions about right to die an unnatural death. Curtailing the natural span of life of a person who has a certain end to life cannot, in any case, be read into Article 21. Opposers also argue that the procedural ambiguity also infringes the right to life of a suffering person. The role of the medical practitioner is very significant in the whole procedure. It affects the right to choose and the voluntariness of the decision which in turn affects the right to life with dignity under Article 21. There has also been continuous discourse over the reach of Article 21 and whether it includes the right to life with dignity or not. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Shripathi Dubal, it was by the Bombay High Court that the right to life includes the right to die as well. The same was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India. However, in the case of Gian Kaur v. the State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that the right to life does to include the right to die. The intention of the patient also holds a paramount front as far as the sensibility of euthanasia is concerned. Some countries such as Australia and Netherlands allow voluntary euthanasia. Some people argue that the administration of voluntary euthanasia is sensible as the chances of ambiguity are very low and apart from that, involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia are in direct infringement of the right to life provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. Active euthanasia is seen by some as evil wrapped in good. It is a belief of many people that killing a person using lethal means is brutal and should not be allowed in any case. As far as passive euthanasia is concerned, some opposers of active euthanasia believe passive euthanasia to be a more sensible act. Different countries which allow euthanasia has their own guidelines as far as the administration of euthanasia is concerned. In India, in the case of Aruna Shanbaug, the 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia to a woman who was in a complete vegetative state for 37 years. The Supreme Court provided two irreversible conditions to permit Passive Euthanasia Law in its 2011 Law: (i) The brain-dead for whom the ventilator can be switched off (II) Those in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for whom the feed can be tapered out and pain-managing palliatives are added, according to laid-down international specifications.
CONCLUSION-
The medical infrastructure in India, as well as the world, is expanding. Diseases, disorders, and ailments are becoming more curable. However, now as we stand today, the stance of countries has been different generally in line with their moral, legal, and political ideologies. Some countries have been hard by not only banning but also penalizing euthanasia. On the other hand, other countries have acquired a lenient stance by allowing it in a regulated manner. The moral fabric of the country has contributed hugely to the position of the country on which it stands as far as euthanasia is concerned. In India, the squabble has mainly been between the right to life with dignity and whether it includes the right to die as well.
REFERENCES-
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5677-euthanasia-a-human-rights-perspective.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440914/
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l118-Euthanasia-and-Human-Rights.html
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/projects/human-rights-and-euthanasia
https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/isa/bla01/