EUTHANASIA: RIGHT TO DIE

ABSTRACT

Every person's "Right to Life" should be able to be exercised by them. The “Right to Life” is protected in “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution” & “Article 3 of the 1948 International Convention on Human Rights”. Every aspect of the “Right to Life” has always been subject to judicial scrutiny and is determined by statistics and situations. 'Mercy killing' or 'good death' are two terms used to describe euthanasia. There are a variety of scenarios in which a person should be permitted to choose death rather than being forced to live. There are several viewpoints in this regard, with some opposing mercy killing and others denying death as a right to die for various reasons. Everyone has the right to live a dignified life in accordance with his wishes while remaining within specified boundaries, and it is required of a human being to battle even when faced with adversity.

INTRODUCTION

Euthanasia, in its most basic form, refers to physician-assisted suicide or merciful killing. Euthanasia is a medical procedure in which a physician injects a fatal chemical into the body of a person who wishes to terminate his life or withdraws life-saving care from the patient. In the Netherlands, Switzerland, Thailand, and a few states in the United States, euthanasia has been ruled legal. There are two sorts of euthanasia: active and passive. In India, the landmark case of “Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India” recognised passive euthanasia. Euthanasia has thus been acknowledged as a feature of “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution” to some extent in India as well.

In the global community, the right to die has long been a contentious issue. It has been a contentious subject in India for centuries with respect to many faiths. In accordance with the “Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, “no person should be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”.

CLASSIFICTION OF EUTHANASIA

1.????Active Euthanasia- It entails injecting a patient with a deadly amount of a medicine that will put an end to his or her life. Active euthanasia is strictly forbidden in India. If a doctor performs active euthanasia, he would be charged under “Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (Punishment for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder)”. If a person administers euthanasia while still alive, he or she will be charged with “Section 309 (Attempt to Suicide) of the Indian Penal Code”.

?

2.????Passive Euthanasia- The removal of life-sustaining assistance from the patient is referred to as passive euthanasia. In the instance of a patient in a Persistent Vegetative State, this type of euthanasia is permissible (PVS).

?

?

3.????Voluntary- Voluntary euthanasia, as the name implies, occurs when a person, with his or her own knowledge or that of his or her rightful guardians, agrees to terminate his or her life by euthanasia. A patient's permission should not be compelled in any way.

?

4.????Involuntary- Involuntary euthanasia is defined as giving euthanasia to a person without his or her intentional permission. It is also seen as a form of assassination.

?

?

5.????Non-Voluntary- An individual is unable to convey his consent to die due to his disease in the event of non-voluntary euthanasia. The individual's family makes the decision to end the person's life on his behalf. As a result, the family, not the patient, makes the final choice.

LEGAL ASPECT OF EUTHANASIA IN INDIA

In India, a person's life is of paramount value. The “Right to Life” is protected under “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution”, which has been explained multiple times by courts in various situations. This is a birth right that cannot be taken away from country and its people.

The question that “Does Right to Die come under the periphery of Article 21?” first pop up “State of Maharashta vs. M.S.Dubal[i]”. In this instance, it was decided by the court that under Article 21, the “Right to Die” is contained in the “Right to Live”. Respectively, “Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code” was deleted from the act. The judges claimed that the willingness to terminate one's life is not unusual, despite the fact that it is rarely witnessed. In “P. Rathiman vs. Union of India”[ii], same verdict was upheld. However, in “Gian Kaur v State of Punjab”[iii], the verdict was changed. The “Right to Die” does not fall in the purview of “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution”, according to a five-judge panel in this case. It has been stated that an individual's “Right to Live” is a right from birth, but the “Right to Die” is an odd aspect of existence and hence cannot be included in the scope of natural rights.

The Supreme Court considered the issue of passive euthanasia in the case of “Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India”[iv].

On the date of March 7, 2011, the “Supreme Court of India”, against all precedent, decided to legalise passive euthanasia for patients who are near death or in a Permanent Vegetative State (PVS). Aruna worked as a registered nurse at Mumbai's King Edward Memorial Hospital. She was sexually assaulted at work and has been in a vegetative state ever then. On January 24, 2011, the top court reacted to her friend Pinki Virani's appeal by creating a team of medical specialists to inspect her after 37 years of this tragedy. After an assessment, the court dismissed the petition for mercy killing on March 7, 2011, though making passive euthanasia legal. The court determined that active euthanasia is still prohibited. The Supreme Court issued the orders, which must be obeyed as law until the Parliament passes legislation on the matter. The instructions given by the apex court were: -

-??????“If the mind is made up to discontinue the extra elements which help in lengthening the life a person, then that decision should be taken by the legal guardians or the person’s partner or by any person who is very close to the patient. And the doctor should act in lawful way thinking about the patient.

-???????The second important point laid down by honourable SC in this case was that the assent of High Court of respective state is obligatory. It cannot be neglected that many family members or close relatives try to get property of the patient and thus they can give their assent in this case. The HC would act as guard and check every aspect of the case.

-??????A course of action was laid down for the High Court also which need to be followed in such cases. It was said that two judges after taking the advice from a team of three expert medical practitioners will take any decision. Also, the close ones of the patient would also be heard by the court before making the final decision.”[v]

After analysing the patient's mental and physical circumstances, the Supreme Court ordered a team of three doctors to deliver a report to them. The patient was not brain dead, according to the medical board, which was made up of three famous experts, and she responded to several events in her own manner. They didn't think euthanasia was necessary in this circumstance. In the case, counter petitions were filed by the employees of KEM Hospital and the Bombay Municipal Corporation challenging Aruna's euthanasia. The staff at KEM Hospital were more than delighted to care for Aruna, and they had been doing so for years. Shanbaug, who was 66 at the time, died of acute pneumonia on May 18, 2015. Following the case of Aruna Shanbaug, the question of euthanasia resurfaced, when the Honourable Supreme Court approved a law permitting all states to lawfully utilise passive euthanasia.

The “Supreme Court” has established standards for the approval of passive euthanasia. An application must be made with the Chief Justice of the High Court under Article 226. To resolve the application, the High Court must form a bench of at least two judges. A committee of three reputable doctors should be consulted before the bench decides. 1 of the 3 doctors should preferably be a neurologist, another a psychiatrist, and the third a physician. The physicians' report must take into account the following aspects, among others: -

-??????“Examination of the patient

-??????Records of the patient

-??????view of the hospital staff”

The State, the patient's immediate relatives, and, in their absence, the patient's next friend will also get notification from the High Court.

In its “241st Report”, the Law Commission suggested that euthanasia be legalised.

Passive euthanasia was permitted in “Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors[vi].”, a historic euthanasia case in which “The Supreme Court” ruled that the "right to die with dignity" is a basic right. A sane human with conscious brain has the ability to refuse or decide against medical treatment. Instead of receiving treatment, he may choose to die naturally.

CONCLUSION

While several governments have previously recognised and legalised euthanasia, it may not be a popular proposition. As a result, it has taken a long time for Indian courts to recognise and legalise euthanasia, as evidenced by the cases of “Gian Kaur and Aruna Shanbaug”, as well as the case of Common Cause (a registered society)”. Because the bench considering the issues is extremely knowledgeable and intelligent, the Apex Court's judgements must be appreciated and recognised by all citizens. As a result, given current advancements in euthanasia law in various nations, this move to enact passive voluntary euthanasia is applauded. Active euthanasia is not now legal, and it is unlikely to become so in the future. For the people for whom euthanasia has been legalised, it will be more of a hindrance than a help.

?

?

?

[i] State of Maharashta vs. M.S.Dubal 1987 (1) BomCR 499

[ii] P. Rathiman vs. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 394

[iii] Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648

[iv]Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 454

[v] (2011) 4 SCC 454

[vi] Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors MANU/SC/0232/2018