EUTHANASIA
ABHINAV TIWARI
National Law Institute
B.A.LLb. (hons.)
abhinav.nliu999@gmail.com
Euthanasia, the word having its origins in Greek refers to the act of ending a life in a painless manner. The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, has defined euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering".
Euthanasia can be classified -
Euthanasia conducted with consent is termed voluntary euthanasia.
Euthanasia conducted without consent is termed involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted where an individual makes a decision for another person incapable of doing so.
B- On basis of procedural decision
Passive euthanasia involves non-continuance of common treatments, such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life.
Active euthanasia involves the use of lethal drugs or chemicals to kill. It’s a method which has faced a lot of controversy. A euthanasia machine is used for the purpose of active euthanasia.
LEGALITY IN MODERN WORLD
Netherlands and Belgium were among the first countries to legalise euthanasia.
In India in a first step towards legalising euthanasia, The Law Commission of India, Ministry of Law and Justice has decided to recommend to the Indian Government to allow terminally ill to end their lives.
THE LAW IN INDIA AS IT STANDS TODAY-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case of Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab (the latest precedent) that Article 21 speaks of right to life. However the pro-euthanasia people contended that when a person suffering with a terminal disease can’t even take care of himself, then how can he be supposed to live a dignified life and therefore in such a case it would be better to allow him to end his life as Article 21 talks about a right to a dignified life. Though the court rejected the contention holding that under Article 21, a person has a right to live a dignified life which also includes right to die with dignity. But here right to die means dying a natural death and not a right to die an unnatural death. The fact that a person is terminally ill, doesn’t give him or anyone else the right to end his life. Thus, right to life does not include right to die.
The Court held that ending a person’s life unnaturally is surely a violation of human rights. A human has a right to live a life on his own terms but that doesn’t allow him to end his life as when he wants. This life has been given to him by God and thus, it should end naturally.
Euthanasia is illegal in India. If a doctor tries to kill a patient, the case will fall under Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. but this is only so in the case of voluntary euthanasia in which such cases will fall under the exception 5 to section 300 of Indian Penal Code,1860 and thus the doctor will be held liable under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code,1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Cases of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia would be struck by proviso one to Section 92 of the IPC and thus be rendered illegal.
Euthanasia and Suicide were clearly defined in the case Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India . J. Lodha stated- “Suicide by its very nature is an act of self-killing or self-destruction, an act of terminating one’s own act and without the aid or assistance of any other human agency while Euthanasia or mercy killing on the other hand implies the intervention of other human agency to end the life. Mercy killing is therefore not suicide and an attempt at mercy killing is not covered by the provisions of Section 309. The two concepts are both factually and legally distinct. Euthanasia or mercy killing is nothing but homicide whatever the circumstances in which it is performed.”
The question whether Article 21 includes right to die or not first arose in the case State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Shripathi Dubal. The Bombay High Court held that ‘right to life’ also includes ‘right to die’ and Section 309 was struck down. The court stated in this case that right to die is not unnatural; it is just uncommon and abnormal. Also the court mentioned about many instances in which a person may want to end his life. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case P. Rathinam v. Union of India.
Interestingly in P.Rathinam’s case, even when a Division bench affirmed the view in M.S Dubal v. State of Maharashtra that the "right to life" provided by the Constitution may be said to bring into its purview, the right not to live a forced life, the plea for legalising euthanasia was rejected. It was held that as euthanasia involves the intervention of a third person, it would indirectly amount to a person abetting the killing of another, which would fall under Section 306 of the I.P.C.
In Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India, Lodha J. affirmed that "Euthanasia or mercy killing is nothing but homicide whatever the circumstances in which it is performed."
In the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab it was held by the five judge bench of the Supreme Court that the “right to life” guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the “right to die”. The court held that Article 21 only guarantees right to life and personal liberty and that the right to die is not included in it.
This leads us to conclude that any act that involves unnatural termination of life- e.g.- an attempt to suicide or an abetment to suicide or assisted suicide or euthanasia, is illegal. The high level of credibility accorded to the sanctity of life in India is evident from the fact that even an attempt to suicide is punishable.