Euthanasia : Death with dignity as a right

 INTRODUCTION 

The euthanasia laws of various nations vary. Euthanasia is described as "a purposeful intervention performed with the explicit goal of ending a life, to relieve persistent suffering" by the British House of Lords select committee on medical ethics. Euthanasia is defined as "termination of life by a doctor at a patient's request" in the Netherlands and Belgium. 

This blog will go into the discussion of Right to die, suicide and various legal understandings regarding that.

Suicide and abetting for suicide 

It goes in the direction that patient is asking for suicide or doctor is abetting for suicide and both of the act is offense in itself in accordance with Indian Penal Code. 

Under section 309 of IPC Attempt to commit suicide is a crime and similarly under section 306 of IPC of IPC abetting suicide is punishable offense. 

So before sometime  legalising it the biggest  challenge before is how to ensure that it is neither suicide or abatement of suicide. 

Imagine a world where patients who cannot have their pain relieved without losing their awareness and taking away their choice are routinely put to death, whether they wish to or not. A strong argument might be made that while suffering, humiliation, and loss of freedom are all unpleasant, only the individual experiencing them should be able to determine whether or not they are intolerable. Nobody else should have the power to decide whether a patient's life is worth extending if they are competent to make that decision.

Other Articles by Sidharth Shankar

Marital Rape a Socio-Legal issue

Decoding : India ,Union of states

Legal battles and further development 

A request for an order to prevent a man from going to Switzerland to receive assisted suicide at the Swiss company Dignitas has been made in the Delhi High Court. According to the petition, the individual secured a Schengen visa by fraudulently telling officials that he was going to Belgium for medical treatment. In addition to asking for orders to form a medical board to assess the man's health and give the appropriate medical care, the petition asked the Indian government to be told not to provide an emigration clearance. This individual has Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, generally known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). A chronic neuro-inflammatory condition, CFS. Even though the individual was receiving treatment at AIIMS for the same condition, it was halted due to a lack of donors. The man is currently confined to his bed and can scarcely take more than a few steps with help.

This case will raise several issues on constitutional law, the right to a dignified life, and the freedom to make one's own decisions.

In Maruti Dubal vs State of Maharashtra, a police officer who attempted self-immolation in front of the Bombay Municipal Corporation building was charged criminally. In the Bombay High Court, he contested the constitutionality of section 309 of the IPC. Earlier, the Bombay High Courts had concurred that basic rights include both positive and negative elements, and that what is true for one must also be true for the other. The court used an illustration to demonstrate how the right of speech extends to the freedom not to speak. Therefore, it should follow logically that the right to life includes the right to death.

In P. Rathinam vs Union of India the court declared that an attempt at suicide showed psychiatric difficulties rather than a criminal motive when it heard the writ suit contesting the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the IPC and repealed Section 309 of the IPC. It concluded that Section 309 violated Article 21.

In Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab the court noted that while Article 21 expresses the right to life as a natural right, suicide is an unnatural way to end one's life and is thus incompatible with the right to life. Furthermore, the right to life does not encompass the right to death. The right to natural life termination is beyond the purview of the right to life with human dignity. 

In Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India Aruna's life had been extensively observed by journalist Pinki Virani, who petitioned the Supreme Court to ban mechanical feeding and other forms of therapy that would have kept her alive. The SC went above and above in determining on Aruna Shanbaug's destiny and also addressed a more significant issue: the legality of passive euthanasia. The court made a distinction between active and passive, willing and unwilling euthanasia.

Active Euthanasia involves a proactive act or act of commission, such as the use of fatal drugs like a lethal injection to end a patient's life.

Passive Euthanasia is discontinuing life-sustaining care(discontinue current care ) with the goal of killing a patient who is terminally sick or who is in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS). (Allowed by Hon'ble SupremeCourt of India)

In Common Cause vs Union of India ,Common Cause filed a petition to have the right to die with dignity included in the scope of article 21's right to life with dignity. 

The court ruled that : 

"Right to life including right to life with human dignity" signifies that this right encompasses a dignified method of death and lasts to the end of a person's life. The essential rights granted by Article 21 include this one. A fundamental right is the ability to pass away with dignity.

 Passive euthanasia falls under the purview of Article 21 when a doctor removes life support. While Article 21 does not apply to active euthanasia, which involves the administration of a fatal substance.

 An adult human being has the option to decline medical care and choose a natural demise. Additionally included by Article 21 is the right of patients who lack the capacity to make informed decisions.

Any individual with mental ability is able to make an advance medical directive in respect of the affirmation of a person's rights to bodily integrity and self-determination.

 

Till now in India the final judgment of Common cause vs UOI is the guiding principle in the matter of Euthanasia . These guidelines will be followed till any new legislation come into force however The Medical Treatment of Terminally-ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill, 2016, is still pending in Parliament.