By Pranav Gupta
Nowadays, with the advancements made in the field of medical science and technology, it appears on the face of it that there is a cure for every illness but if we delve in with some practical focus then it can be realized that it is almost impossible to attain cure for every illness. Then, comes the concept of Euthanasia which is notoriously infamous as the right to die. Euthanasia is generally defined as the ‘treatment’ given to a person suffering from incurable or incapacitating physical or mental disorders. The word ‘treatment’ used in the former line does not refer to any ordinary medical conduct rather it is the act of killing that person so that he/she can be relieved from the miserable suffering of his/her disease. Euthanasia is known by different names in different regions, it is referred to as “assisted suicides” in some regions and “mercy killing” in others, depending upon the cultural ethos of the region.
With the development in the medical field, Euthanasia has become a hot topic of discussion. Euthanasia is a complex issue that carries with itself the ethical and emotional values. It is possible to trace the moral permissibility of euthanasia back to Socrates, Plato, and the Stoics.[1] In some places, it is considered morally incorrect to deliberately end the life of a person even though the person is suffering from serious pain due to some incurable disease, whereas on the other hand, it is regarded as a progressive step in cutting down the misery of a sick person who has no chance of living a quality life again.
In most of the legal system, there is no specific provision dealing with the issue of Euthanasia which is why it does not get its due specific status. It is often conceived as either suicide or murder but still, there is no certainty as regards its status. There is one more amusing fact regarding the administration of drugs by doctors as physicians often prescribe drugs that relieve the pain but in return also shorten the individual’s life which is generally not considered under Euthanasia.[2]
Types of Euthanasia
Since Euthanasia is a multifaceted concept, it can be classified into various types depending upon the measures taken to differentiate them.
On the basis of treatment given to commit euthanasia it is of two types i.e., Active Euthanasia and Passive Euthanasia. As the name suggests, in Active Euthanasia, there is the administration of an active or lethal substance into the body of the person which causes the patient’s death artificially. One example of it can be the injection of an aqueous solution of sodium thiopental or midazolam. It is also referred to as ‘Aggressive Euthanasia’.[3] In Passive Euthanasia, the death of the person is caused by passive or indirect means like switching off the ventilator which was keeping the person alive or not performing a necessary surgery which would have extended the life for a short span. Generally, Active Euthanasia is the result of an act while Passive Euthanasia is the result of an omission. [4]
Based on the consent against whom the act or omission is committed, it is also of two types i.e., Voluntary Euthanasia and Involuntary Euthanasia. In Voluntary Euthanasia, the life- ending drug is administered or essential life support is removed with the consent of the sick person whereas in Involuntary Euthanasia, consent of the deceased person is not taken.[5]
Legal Status of Euthanasia
The first and the original Hippocratic Oath included the following line: -
“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.”[6]
This line is often used as a basis in many countries to ban Euthanasia. The legal discourse for Euthanasia has varied drastically for different countries. The history has witnessed a lot of demonstrations for the legalization and illegalisation of this practice. The first organized step for the legalization of Euthanasia took place in England with the formation of the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalization Society. This body specifically worked for this cause and held a lot of strikes before the Parliament of the UK and as a last resort took the matter to the House of Lords. The society’s demand was later rejected by the House of Lords.[7] Similar societies erupted in various corners of the world especially the European region after this incident in the UK.[8]
If we analyze this legal trend concerning India which is a country where basic human rights violations occur frequently, illiteracy is widespread, over half the population lacks access to clean water, and infections claim lives on a daily basis, issues related to euthanasia are irrelevant. However, owing to the religious and cultural diversities prevalent in India, the debate on Euthanasia becomes more confusing. Euthanasia is often considered a type of suicide by the common people of India but suicide and even its abetment is criminalized India under sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the Right to Life which is a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 does not include the Right to Die but includes the Right to Die with Dignity.[9] Therefore, in simple terms, Passive Euthanasia is allowed or legalized in India but Active Euthanasia is strictly prohibited with severe penalties.[10] Even though Passive Euthanasia is legalised in India but SC has laid down a strict monitoring framework for practicing it, with the committee sanctioned for approving this practice should have at least three renowned doctors for advising on this matter and a unanimous verdict as a perquisite for its practice.[11]
Legal Status of Euthanasia
In the recent few years, the take of the Indian government on the criminalization of Suicide has undergone a revolutionary transformation. Enactment of new legislations and modification of the existing rules have been evident of this new position of the government. Since the colonial time, Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) classifies attempt to suicide as a criminal offense, completely neglecting the mindset and philosophy of the persons behind committing such an act. Also, the provision rather than providing rehabilitation programs to these people subject them to potential imprisonment or fines, further degrading their mental health.
However, this transformation is not a sudden or a spontaneous one rather it is the result of long bequeathed efforts of both the Executive and the Judiciary. First such attempt towards the decriminalization of the same was made in the year 1978 by introducing an amendment bill in the Rajya Sabha but the proposal couldn’t materialize due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. A void of 40 years followed after this failure but in the meanwhile various judgements were passed by different High Courts of the country emphasising the deletion or modification of Section 309 from the Indian judicial system. The ruling of the Delhi HC in the case of State v. Sanjaya Kumar Bhatia[12] is worthy to be noted here where the court stated Section 309 to be ‘unworthy of society’.
The government made another attempt in this direction by introducing the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (MHCA) which decriminalised attempted suicide for all practical purposes. But this effort of the government didn’t prove to be fruitful as it created significant confusion in the mind of the general public due to lack of explanation provided on the potential intersection of the provisions of this Act with Section 309 of IPC. This confusion though persisted for some time has now been resolved by the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (BNS). BNS has completely removed Section 309 of the IPC from the table and contains Section 224 according to which the attempt to commit suicide will be punishable only if it prevents a public servant from carrying out their legal duty.
Conclusion
As a result, it can be said that Euthanasia is a multi-faceted issue with every having its own interpretation of it. It would be difficult to achieve a uniform policy on it because this issue can have different repercussions depending upon the culture and religious practices. Even this practice and the famous Sallekhana custom, widely practiced in Jainism have some parallels between them showing the amalgamation of it in religious beliefs. The fundamental issue of contention that drives continuous discussions in legislative bodies, courts, and communities is the tension that exists between individual freedom of choice and societal protections. So, there needs to be a balance between the two for a peaceful solution to this existing problem.
The Supreme Court judgment allowing Passive Euthanasia shows the balanced approach of the Indian Judicial system in this matter which should be appreciated. Moreover, its inclusion in the fundamental right is also a cherry on the cake. The established Judgement serves to maintain social harmony in the face of intricate legal, medical, and social quandaries.
The author of this article is Pranav Gupta, a law student at Rajiv Gandhi National Law University.
[1]“Euthanasia | Definition, History, & Facts” (Encyclopedia Britannica, November 7, 2023) https://www.britannica.com/topic/euthanasia.
[2]“Euthanasia | Definition, History, & Facts” (Encyclopedia Britannica, November 7, 2023) https://www.britannica.com/topic/euthanasia.
[3]“Log in | MU School of Medicine” https://medicine.missouri.edu/centers-institutes-labs/health-ethics/faq/euthanasia.
[4]“BBC - Ethics - Euthanasia: Forms of Euthanasia” https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/forms.shtml.
[5]Morrow A RN, “What Is Euthanasia?” (Verywell Health, May 2, 2023) https://www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-euthanasia-1132209.
[6]Brazier Y, “What Are Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide?” (February 15, 2023) https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951#history.
[7]“Euthanasia | Definition, History, & Facts” (Encyclopedia Britannica, November 7, 2023) https://www.britannica.com/topic/euthanasia.
[8]“Euthanasia” (LII / Legal Information Institute) https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/euthanasia#:~:text=Euthanasia%20is%20more%20commonly%20performed,Jersey%2C%20California%2C%20and%20Vermont.
[9]Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 945.
[10]Das A and Law L, “Right To Die: Supreme Court Makes It Easier For Persons To Opt For Passive Euthanasia; Simplifies 2018 Guidelines” Live Law (February 4, 2023) https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/right-to-die-supreme-court-makes-it-easier-for-persons-to-opt-for-passive-euthanasia-simplifies-2018-guidelines-on-living-willadvance-directive-220682?infinitescroll=1.
[11]Sinha VK, Basu S and Sarkhel S, “Euthanasia: An Indian Perspective” (2012) 54 Indian Journal of Psychiatry 177 https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.99537.
[12]State v. Sanjay Kumar Bhatia, 1986 (10) DRJ31.
This article contains the view of the author and the publisher in no way associates with the views or ideologies of the author. All the moral rights vests with the Author(s).
Comments