The legal standpoint on active euthanasia in India
THE LEGAL STANDPOINT ON ACTIVE EUTHANASIA IN INDIA
Introduction:
Euthanasia or “mercy killing” as it is sometimes known can be described as an act rooted in controversy in most countries of the world but more so in India due to the intertwining legal, ethical and cultural issues involved. The word is derived from the words ‘Eu-‘ (good) ‘Thanatos’ (death), meaning ‘good death’. Euthanasia is a deliberate act of killer to relieve a person from pain and suffering; consequent to this act several questions abound in law and morals. Active euthanasia refers to lethal injection which is where a doctor applies a substance to make a patient die. There are huge controversies in the course of law relating to mercy killing and why a physician should have the authority to kill a patient.
Legal Framework In India:
In India, the courts have taken a stance whereby active euthanasia is wrong; it is prohibited and active switching is practiced due the rule of law which is primarily rooted in the Penal Code of India and recent court cases. Sections such as Section 100 and 101 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in it is stated with certain exceptions no killing can be justified including euthanasia. Aruna Shanbaug eclipsed cases such as Common Cause vs. Union of India distinction was made as to whether these acts constituted mercy killing or passive now forms an active legal protection in affirmative action indians against discrimination scope of practising euthanasia.
THE LEGAL STANDPOINT ON ACTIVE EUTHANASIA IN INDIA
BY: TAMANNA PANDEY
2ND YEAR B.A.L.L.B
GALGOTIAS UNIVERSITY, GREATER NOIDA.
INTRODUCTION:
The right to die or euthanasia is often considered as mercy killing and this is still a very controversial issue all around the world, especially in India where legal, ethical, and cultural concerns get mixed into a multidimensional point of view. Euthanasia is originally from the Greek word that is “Euthanasia,” in which “EU” is positive, and “Thanatos” is defined as “death” and the whole signifies “a painless/happy death” in Greek. Back in the old times, it was simply a merciful act of giving relief to someone by practicing euthanasia. Euthanasia has now become the intentional act of killing someone else to relieve their immeasurable suffering and the pain they encounter. By boiling it down, active euthanasia is a kind of euthanasia where the doctor therefore consents to give a poisonous drug that would make the patient die, legally and morally that is problematic. Consequently, It brings about a significant legal dispute, a situation in which a doctor has the power to choose whether to take the patient’s life.
WHAT IS ACTIVE EUTHANASIA?
Active euthanasia is commonly used when a person is deliberately made to lose his/her life through the use of toxic materials which are Dutch. Unlike active euthanasia, passive euthanasia involves the act of neglecting or sometimes pulling out the patient’s remedy, which is sustained and allowed to die naturally. Straightforward active euthanasia prompts increased legal review and ethical discussions. A similar solution is PAS (physician-assisted suicide) which besides the doctor’s means of administering a lethal dose of substances, is also seriously contemplated. The drug must be administered by the patient alone. There are three categories of Active Euthanasia: voluntary euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia, and involuntary euthanasia.
1. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient, with their full mental capacity, makes a conscious and informed decision to end their own life.
2. Non-voluntary euthanasia refers to the situation where the patient is not mentally competent to make decisions, and someone else makes the decision on their behalf.
3. Involuntary euthanasia, on the other hand, occurs when the decision to end someone's life is made without their consent.1
LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN INDIA:
India's legal approach to euthanasia, especially active euthanasia, underwent radical changes over the years. The course of law is designated by legislative and judicial acts and discussions among the public.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Sections 100 and 1012: These sections describe culpable homicide and murder, making any act of killing, euthanasia included, a crime unless it fits into any of the exceptions mentioned earlier.
Section 1083: Abetment of suicide is, very dealing under BNS that furthers the legal landscape for seeing what we mean.
Sections 100 and 101: These sections describe culpable homicide and murder, making any act of killing, including euthanasia, a criminal offense unless it falls under specific exceptions.
Section 108: Abetment of suicide is also a punishable offense under the BNS, further complicating the legal landscape for active euthanasia.
Right to die: euthanasia has been nowhere mentioned in the Constitution of India, but through various landmark judgments it has been in discussion. Article 21 of the Fundamental Rights mentioned in part III of the Constitution of India discusses the right to life, Article 21 states that “no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law” in the case of the State of Maharastra Vs. Maruti Sripati Dubal4 the concept of personal liberty was further broadened and the right to die as a part of personal liberty was mentioned by the Bombay High Court, the court ruled that the right to life encircles the right to die, and the court ordered that the section 309 of IPC which talks about suicide was declared unconstitutional. Later on, this judgment of the Bombay High Court was supported by the bench of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India5
This judgment of the Supreme Court was overturned in the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab6 In this case, the judgment given in the case of P. Rathinam was turned and the court said that the right to die is not included in the article 21 and further the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court declared section 309 of IPC (Indian penal code) Constitutional.
LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE:
Despite their interpretations by judges, their efforts at the legislative level to legalize euthanasia have been limited. Advocacy and public dialogue can continue to determine the state of the law.
Living Wills and Advance Directives Recognition: In 2018, the Supreme Court judgment allowed individuals to express their own will by creating living wills. Challenges: Living wills are a practical challenge to have clearness in authenticity, awareness, and legal co- operating agreements.
Recognition: In 2018, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment, thus, living wills were (recognized) as a way of the confirmatory declaring their wishes for essential life-saving care in case they (the will writer) are unconscious or permanently unconscious.
Challenges: Living will implementation is a difficult challenge due to the factors that are necessary for the process of authenticity, awareness, and compliance with the legal safeguards.
Public Opinion and Advocacy Awareness Campaigns: Apart from the legislation and the court, civil society, and other human rights groups also play a key role and contribute to the debate around this topic. Debates: Different opinions can be concluded regarding the issue of assisted suicide. Some support the idea of providing freedom and dignity for one's own choice of time of death, which differs from those who fear its abuse and moral part.
Awareness Campaigns: Not only legislative and courts but also, civil societies and other human rights major actors also have come forward to engage in the debates on legal enslavement of people's rights. Debates: The presentation of the arguments of the alternative views both sides take in the critical situation of euthanasia is the basis of public debates. Advocates concentrate on the individual's autonomy and self-respect, whereas, opponents are raising questions of morality and misuse.
LANDMARK CASES AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS:
The Indian Judiciary has been a game-changer in coming up with the law to do with naming the next-of-kin, inter alia, and making the legal predicates for experiments that are innovative and risky. The essential cases exhibit the adaptable lawful attitude and judicial thinking.
Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011)7 Ruling:
The apex court made the distinction between active and passive euthanasia, authorizing the latter with strict conditions while still keeping the illegality of the former. Impact: This specific case started a wide-ranging talk about patient rights, end-of-life care, and ethical considerations emerging with euthanasia being legalized.
Ruling: The Supreme Court delineated active and passive euthanasia which was a directive that allowed only passive euthanasia under very specific circumstances while at the same time outlawing the act of the former.
Impact: This case prompted a broader discussion on patients' rights, end-of-life care, and the ethical implications of euthanasia.
Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)8 Ruling:
The Supreme Court, being a part of Article 21, gave life to the recognition of the right to die with dignity, decriminalizing passive euthanasia and admitting living wills. Impact: This order consolidated the patient's right to make his own decisions and established the rules of practice for passive euthanasia and living wills.
Ruling: The Supreme Court recognized the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21, legalizing passive euthanasia and validating living wills.
Impact: This judgment reinforced the importance of patient autonomy and established procedural safeguards for implementing passive euthanasia and honoring living wills.
CULTURAL AND ETHICAL ANALYSIS:
Further analysis of the cultural and ethical background will show how issues of euthanasia are complex in India.
Cultural Sensitivities Family Dynamics: In India, family is the most significant part of the decision-making process at the end of life. The Indian society, which is characterized by collectivity, frequently promotes the concept of family agreement and participation, which may create obstacles for self-command in euthanasia decisions.
Attaching Importance to the Family Members: India is now developing into a society of togetherness, love, and union through various means; however, elders and sick family members were usually in dire predicaments in Islamic and Hindu communities before their deaths which was the main reason for euthanasia being the first treatment option. Thus, the issues involving their role and personal dignity in extending lives beyond the dying clients'
wishes are always under consideration. Traditional practices of a patient's family members joining in end-of-life treatments often disregard the wishes, comfort, and quality of the patient's life the latter, which are legally reserved to patients themselves. However, recent developments, such as the legalization of euthanasia in the past twenty years of the last century, have provided an alternative option for the terminally ill. In this situation, patients themselves are not just simple victims as assumed by paternalistic medical institutions, but producers of information soon they become actors managing their own identities through the activation of symbols. They can, for example, use euthanasia as an instrument to consummate their own decision and reduce the suffering they would have gone through. However, the state plays a heavy role in society as violence, domination, and oppression of the ruled by the rulers are maintained. In the same local multiple counts of reasons were raised for favoring and disfavoring this event in the subjects’ rankings. Among them were the following: the arguments of both sides, the ethical and political knowledge of people, the popularity of life- prolongation technologies, religious beliefs, and social background (class, region, and nationality). Singular topics such as vegetative or chemical coma will not be included in the survey. Abortion, immortality, and life-support issues are expected to be modified with time, as society's infrastructures are developed. Medic enjoyed a greater interest in their utilization of legalized euthanasia than did education and human sciences, social sciences, and science and biotechnology.
INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON:
An insight into global attitudes towards active euthanasia offers a new perspective on the legal position adopted by India and it reveals an extended variety of norms that are colored definitely through cultural, moral in addition to prison pursuits.
Netherlands and Belgium:
Netherlands and Belgium in particular are powerful allies since they already have such progressive legalized active euthanasia. Active euthanasia has been decriminalized in both countries (subject to statutory and regulatory frameworks that are designed, inter alia, to guard against abuse by unscrupulous practitioners), so long as it is practiced ethically.
The Dutch Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act 2002 legalized euthanasia and PAS for those experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement, subject to sticking to the relevant procedures.
Belgium: The country legalized euthanasia in 2002 with essentially the same strict conditions. Belgium legalized euthanasia in 2012 for minors starting from the age of twelve, along with strict safeguards ensuring the decision is voluntary.
Comparison of laws: In India, only passive euthanasia under certain guidelines as laid down by the judgment of the Aruna Shanbaug case (2011) and reiterated in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) is legal In India, a different approach exists in making the active and passive euthanasia distinct.
CONCLUSION:
Active euthanasia has legal, ethical, and cultural dimensions making it a complex issue. Active euthanasia is still illegal in India, as the country has taken a prudent stance due to cultural reasons and ethical considerations. The judiciary has also contributed its portion by dividing euthanasia into active (active) and passive voluntary and allowing the former to be conducted under the most onerous conditions so as not to limit patient rights while still protecting them from potential abuses.
International lessons from countries including The Netherlands, Belgium, and the US show how diverse legal frameworks can reflect separate cultural approaches to euthanasia. What is known about the legalization of active euthanasia in The Netherlands and Belgium which have strict guidelines stands in contrast with a more loose approach, operating under state impairment laws as seen by the United States allowing physician-assisted suicide in certain circumstances.
For India, the way forward is a delicate balance between dignity in death and safeguarding vulnerable populations. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to acknowledge living wills and advance directives is an important stride toward recognition of patient autonomy, as well as compassionate care for the dying. For informed legislation that is congruent with the cultural, and ethical mores of India and at the same time addresses moral complexities in euthanasia; a continuing dialogue within public discourse supported by innovative legislative measures will
be imperative along with research findings from comparative studies across different national practices.
As the discussion ensues, both policymakers and legal experts should come together in reasoned discourse that leads to comprehensive legislation that respects patient individuality yet upholds ethical imperatives and safeguards against abuse. It is a moving legal ball and the future of euthanasia practices in India depends largely upon its evolving legal landscape under both domestic and international influence.
1 Live law, Euthanasia: Legal Aspects In India And Around The World (remotlog.com), (last visited on 4, august 2024)
2 Corresponds to section 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) 3 Corresponds to section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
4 State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal, (1986) 88 Bom LR 5
5 P. Rathinam v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 394
6 Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648
7 Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaugh v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 1290
8 Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1