Right To Die: Passive Euthanasia In India

"Euthanasia" literally translates to "good death" or "easy death." Euthanasia is the act of mercifully killing people who are terminally ill, handicapped, or injured. As a result, euthanasia is more commonly referred to as "mercy killing."

The terms "active" and "passive" are used interchangeably. The distinction between euthanasia and assisted suicide (APD) The Supreme Court explained the reasoning behind its 2011 ruling in Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India, which allowed "passive" euthanasia in certain terminal cases, including "involuntary" passive euthanasia for mentally incompetent patients. The court also issued interim guidelines to enforce individuals' living wills in the event of future incompetence, ruling that Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteed the "right to die with dignity." The judicial APD developed primarily by UK courts has been incorporated by Aruna and Common Cause.

 

The Supreme Court's decision allowing passive euthanasia and giving legal status to "advance directives" is based on the principle that the right to a dignified life includes the right to a dignified death. The five-member Constitution Bench grappled with a question that involved "finding substance and balance in the relationship between life, morality, and the experience of dying," as Justice D.Y. Chandrachud put it. The exercise yielded a progressive and humane decision that establishes a broad legal framework for safeguarding the dignity of terminally ill patients or those in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with no hope of recovery. For, in such circumstances, “accelerating the process of death for reducing the period of suffering constitutes a right to live with dignity”.

 

The central message is that all adults with the capacity to give consent have the right to "self-determination and autonomy," which includes the right to refuse medical treatment. In 2011, a two-judge bench in Aruna Shanbaug recognised passive euthanasia; now, the Constitution Bench has added to the jurisprudence on the subject the principle of a 'living will,' or advance directive, which is a practise in which a person, while in a competent state of mind, leaves written instructions on the type of medical treatment that may or may not be administered in the event of her reaching a stage of terminal illness. Passive euthanasia entails the removal of life support or the discontinuation of life-sustaining medical treatment to allow a person with a terminal illness to die naturally. When the court says that burdening a dying patient with life-prolonging treatment and equipment simply because medical technology has advanced would be degrading to her dignity, the court's reasoning is unexceptionable.

 

In such a case, "individual interest must take precedence over state interest." The court has used its inherent power under Article 142 of the Constitution to give advance directives legal status, and its directives will remain in effect until Parliament passes legislation on the subject.

 

The government stated that it was working on a bill to regulate passive euthanasia, but that it opposed the concept of an advance directive because it could be abused. The court's strict conditions for advance directives are intended to serve as a set of robust safeguards and assuage any concerns about misuse. The court is correct in concluding that advance directives will strengthen the will of treating doctors by assuring them that they are acting lawfully and in accordance with the wishes of the patient. After all, an advance directive only reflects the patient's autonomy and does not imply that the patient wishes to die.

 

• The ruling includes specific guidelines for determining the validity of a living will, such as who should certify it, when and how it should take effect, and so on.

 

• The guidelines also address what to do in the absence of a living will and how to handle a request for passive euthanasia.

 

• A person does not have to give any reasons for writing an advanced directive, and he is not accountable to anyone.

 

The Supreme Court's guidelines on passive euthanasia: Doctors' Responsibilities

 

• The Supreme Court's guidelines, while upholding passive euthanasia and 'LivingWill,' impose a significant burden on the treating physician and hospital.

 

• It is the treating doctor's responsibility to determine the "genuineness and authenticity" of a terminally ill patient's Living Will.

 

• The Judicial Magistrate would be in charge of the living will.

 

• The court also grants the treating doctor, along with the dying person's relatives or guardians, the right to petition the High Court if the Medical Board refuses to grant permission for passive euthanasia.

 

• An individual's right to withdraw or change his Living Will is also granted by the court, but only in writing.

 

Twenty years after repealing the world's first mercy-killing law for the terminally ill, an Australian state parliament has legalised voluntary euthanasia. Doctor-assisted suicide will be legal in Australia's second-most populous state from mid-2019, thanks to a final vote in the Victorian parliament on Wednesday.

 

Even the Supreme Court of Canada, which inspired the Seales case with a unanimous ruling in February, has only upheld a right to euthanasia in principle.

 

A rigid "active" versus "passive" euthanasia distinction (APD) is analytically unsustainable if passive euthanasia is a guaranteed fundamental right.

 

There is no articulable reason why "withdrawal" of current treatment (as opposed to "withholding") isn't an illegal "active" decision that hastens death from the underlying cause. It's similar to a lethal injection in that it accelerates death. More importantly, it may unjustly deny those who require assistance accessing a recognised fundamental right. Overarching policy concerns, such as the potential for abuse by unscrupulous individuals; the threat of criminal prosecution of benign doctors and families, etc., arguably necessitated the creation of APD.

 

There is no reasonable basis for negating the right to "dignified death" or "bodily autonomy" in the case of a patient whose circumstances warrant assistance in exercising it. However, no one can deny that –'Euthanasia is simply the ability to die with dignity at a time when life has robbed you of it!"