INTRODUCTION
“To save a man’s life against his will is the same as killing him.” – Horace
Each person wants to live his life to the fullest and for a long time. But there are circumstances in which the same person wishes to end his life. The end of a person's life alone can result in two ways; or suicide or euthanasia. While the former is completely illegal in India, the latter is a moot topic.
Euthanasia, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, means the act or practice of killing or allowing the death of irremediably ill or injured individuals relatively painlessly for the sake of mercy. It can also be seen as "merciful killing". According to this practice, the victim, or any other person on his or her behalf, chooses death for himself, mainly due to the victim's medical condition, and then is put to death by someone else. [I] This is done simply to end mercifully the life of the victim to free him from an incurable disease, from intolerable suffering, and from the misery and pain of life. When a person ends his life with his own act, it is called "suicide". Ending a person's life at the request of others or at the request of the deceased is known as "euthanasia" or, in a simpler form, "killing for mercy”. Euthanasia is mainly associated with people who have some terminal illness, or who are disabled and do not wish to continue suffering for the rest of their life. A severely handicapped or terminally ill person should have the right to choose whether she wants to live or not.
LEGAL ASPECT OF EUTHANASIA IN INDIA
Indian courts recognize only passive euthanasia. In a recent Common Cause case (a regd. Society), it was stated that the "right to die with dignity" is a fundamental right of the person. It can be used by patients who suffer from incurable and prolonged illnesses, and have reached the permanent vegetative state, where there is little or no hope of recovery, and patients are kept alive through external tools and machines, such as cardiopulmonary machines. In these cases, passive euthanasia can be allowed.
Previously, this was not the situation, when even passive euthanasia was not legal in India. The doctors, who caused the euthanasia, fell within the scope of exception 5 of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, as they had the necessary "intention" to cause the death of the patient in question; in cases of voluntary euthanasia, insofar as there was valid consent, the said doctor, or whoever caused the euthanasia, would be punishable by manslaughter not comparable to homicide, pursuant to art. 304 of the penal code.
However, this position is only in cases of voluntary euthanasia, where the patient gives his consent to the cause of his death and the person is over 18 while giving consent. Cases of involuntary and involuntary euthanasia were not covered by this, as they would have been affected by the first condition of Article 92 of the criminal code. Active euthanasia is a crime in India.
The court recognized "passive euthanasia", in which the doctor does not cause the death of the person, simply does not save him, by interrupting the ongoing treatment, or by disabling the life support machines, through which the patient is alive. . "Active euthanasia", which occurs following the administration and injection of a lethal drug dose; of an overdose of that drug or medicine, which otherwise would not be lethal, were it not for the increased dosage, in the victim's body, has been recognized as of now by the Indian courts.
The courts are of the opinion that a person, or here, a doctor cannot be punished for failing to save a patient. However, since an "act" not only includes a positive act by the offender, it also includes all the "omissions" of the legal obligation that one is required to fulfill. Therefore, a person should be punished not only for some overt act but also for the omission of a legal duty that the law requires him to fulfill.
CONCLUSION
“I think those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their own life, and those that help them should be free from prosecution.” -Stephen Hawking
The excellence of the life of a human being lies when he lives it happily, fruitfully and, above all, lives it on his own terms. If a person suffers from an irremediable disease and it becomes so difficult for him to bear that pain, it would be inhumane to force him to live. Medical treatments can extend his life but indirectly give him an undesirable life.
While some countries around the world have already recognized and legalized the provision of euthanasia, the legalization of euthanasia may not be a very attractive idea. Indian courts, as a result, have taken a long time, from the cases of Gian Kaur, Aruna Shanbaug, to the Common cause case (a regd. Society), to recognize and legalize euthanasia, and have legalized passive voluntary euthanasia. The Apex Court is the highest court of justice and the decisions that have been given to it must be respected and recognized by all citizens of the country, as the court that decides cases is highly experienced and wise. Therefore, this decision to legalize voluntary passive euthanasia is welcome, due to recent developments on the law of euthanasia in some countries. Active euthanasia has not yet been legalized and hopefully will not be practiced in the future as well. Euthanasia will be more harm than good for the people for whom legalization was done.
REFERENCE-
· Legal Service India, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/787/Euthanasia-in-India.html
· The wire, https://thewire.in/health/passive-euthanasia-now-a-legal-reality-in-india
· Mondaq connecting knowledge and people, https://www.mondaq.com/india/healthcare/904926/euthanasia-a-perspective
· Zainab Arif Khan, Euthanasia in India, Ipleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/euthanasia-india-legal-aspect/