Legalization of Passive Euthanasia

Euthanasia has been a much-discussed subject throughout the world. Euthanasia refers to the act or practises of killing or bringing about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or condition especially a painful one, for reasons of mercy.[1] In the Maruti Shripati Dubal [2], the Bombay High court has endeavoured to make a contrast between euthanasia and suicide. As indicated by the court, suicide is an act of self-killing without the involvement of others. On the other hand, euthanasia implies the intercession of other human sources to end life. Subsequently, euthanasia cannot be considered at par with suicide. Passive euthanasia also known as negative euthanasia is a medical condition where therapeutic treatment is not given with a definitive expectation of completion of the life of that person who is critically ill.

This 196th Law Commission Report on ‘Medical Treatment to Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners)’ prescribed that there must be a law made to ensure protection of patients who are in critical condition and who deny medicinal treatment, fake sustenance, or hydration from the offence of ‘attempt to commit suicide’ under section 309 of the I.P.C. Likewise, the doctors must be ensured in the event that they are indicted for ‘abetment of suicide’ under sections 305, 306 of the I.P.C.,1860 when they make choices to retain or pull back life support for the advantage of terminally ill patients.

The matter of legalization of euthanasia was activated with the instance of P. Rathinam v. Union of India[3], where the Supreme Court based its choice of unconstitutionality of Section 309 on the basis that fundamental right to do incorporate the privilege not to. Likewise, the Court deciphered the "right to life" under Article 21 as comprehensive of the "right to die". Overruling the said analogy, the court in the instance of Gian Kaur v. The State Of Punjab [4], distinguished the privilege to decline medicinal help for endurance as contradictory to the fundamental texture of "right to life". Nonetheless, the Court declined to explicitly decide the sacred legitimacy and lawfulness of euthanasia. Subsequently, the questions regarding the legalization of Euthanasia were answered by the Supreme Court on 9th March 2018 in the Aruna Shanbaug case.[5] In this case, the court accepted passive euthanasia in extraordinary medicinal conditions under legal checking. It gave rules under which passive euthanasia should be done. The Court fundamentally separated active euthanasia from passive euthanasia. While active euthanasia involves the intentional infliction of deadly medications that assist demise, passive euthanasia only requires the withdrawal of restorative medical help vital for the survival of patients in critical condition without the use of deadly medications. The ethical difference between passive and active euthanasia is letting die and killing respectively.

Article 21 discusses the "Right to life" however it isn't simply constrained to it but includes living that life with nobility. The fundamental contentions raised were that this dimension of dignity stays immaculate when individuals who are in critical condition are being kept alive by doctors through medications and machines. It was said in the judgment that Customary Hindu culture additionally accentuates the good demise as an impression of the quality of life that went before it. Quality life assumes a crucial role as it causes a person to feel great about himself and that isn't the situation of a critically ill individual lying on the deathbed realizing that he is going to die one day and is additionally experiencing monstrous agony being a weight on his/her loved ones and therefore this reduces the personal satisfaction. The right to life does exclude the right to die but it paved the path for passive euthanasia.

It was also included that the State interest ought not to over-gauge the individual interest and the individual ought to be permitted to peacefully die as opposed to dragging out his life without wanting to through medicinal advancement. Another counter-contention raised was that if individuals begin to maintain a strategic distance from these medicinal advancements for their life and will acknowledge demise then it will demotivate the doctors and scientists who are searching for the solution of that specific sickness. Again the contention began spinning around life and dignity and was dominated by assent and will.

The Judgment also included the word ‘Sanctity of Life’ which disallows the intentional decimation of human life which implies it isn't necessary to utilize restorative medical instruments to delay one's life on the off chance that it is, at last, going to cause agony and suffering to that person. It was also contended that the living will be abused against the patient and is in opposition to the public policy as one ought not to be enabled to choose whether he should be permitted to live or die. For this, the court was of the view that there will be sure standards and guidelines made which will ensure that there is no abuse of the living will of an individual and the orders given by him in advance. A living will is a composed document that gives a method by which a patient can give his unequivocal directions ahead of time about the medical treatment to be managed when the person in question is critically ill or no longer ready to express consent. Supreme Court acknowledged the 'living will' for passive euthanasia made by a patient who is terminally ill and set down rules regarding a course of action to be embraced for it.

Therefore the idea of "living will" and "advance mandates" was acknowledged in this judgment which approves an individual to decide what he needs to do with his life in case he is critically ill thereby making passive euthanasia legally permissible.

[The author, Divya Vishal is a law student at National University of Study and Research In Law, Ranchi]

1. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed., 2004)
2. Maruti Shripati Dubal vs. the State of Maharashtra; 1987 Cri.L.J 743 Bomb
3. P. Rathinam v. Union of India;1994 SCC (3) 394
4. Gian Kaur v. The State Of Punjab;1996 SCC (2) 648
5. Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India,2011(3) SCALE 298: MANU/SC/0176/2011