MUMBAI UNIVERSITY

PROJECT ON

EUTHANASIA

GROUP : V (CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION)

SEMESTER : III

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. D. K. SONAWANE MR. RAKESH DNYANDEO KENE

ROLL NO.:- 78
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A research project of such great scope and precision could never have been

possible without great co-operation from all sides. Contributions of various

people have resulted in this effort. Firstly, I would like to thank God for the

knowledge he has bestowed upon me.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank MR. RAKESH DNYANDEO
KENE

sir without whose valuable support and guidance, this project would have been

impossible. I would like to thank the library staff for having put up with my

persistent queries and having helped me out with the voluminous materials

needed for this project. I would also like to thank my seniors for having guided

me and culminate this acknowledgement by thanking my friends for having kept

the flame of competition burning, which spurred me on through the days.

MR. RAKESH DNYANDEO KENE

 ABSTRACT

―Euthanasia means an action which aims at taking the life of someone at

his expressed request. It concerns an action of which death is the purpose and

the result.‖ This delimitation applies only to voluntary euthanasia and excludes

the non voluntary or involuntary euthanasia, the killing of a patient without the

patient‘s knowledge or consent. Some call this ―life-terminating treatment.‖

Euthanasia or ‗mercy killing‘ is the direct intentional killing of a patient with

either their consent without their consent when impossible or without consent

but not sought. Many patients are in immense suffering and may be led to

choose death as the answer by these ‗doctors‘, friends or relatives. The

culpability for the patient, in these cases May or relatives. The culpability for

the patient, in these cases may Be lessened, but, this act of killing can never be

justified. These patients, whether having an incurable disease, being elderly, or

suffering in other ways, are crying out for help and love.
 CONTENT

Declaration...............................................................................................................................1

Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................2

Abstract....................................................................................................................................3

What is euthanasia.................................................................................................................5

Euthanasia and its ethics.......................................................................................................6

Why euthanasia should be allowed.....................................................................................6

Reason for euthanasia to be forbidden................................................................................7

Changing attitudes................................................................................................................7

Killing or letting die..............................................................................................................7

Euthanasia and pain relief...................................................................................................8

Why people want Euthanasia...............................................................................................8

Difference between suicide and euthanasia........................................................................8

Euthanasiaclassifications..........................................................................................................9

Euthanasia in India.............................................................................................................11

The scenario of Euthanasia around the world................................................................12

Why euthanasia should not be legalised...........................................................................15

Reasons to legalise euthanasia............................................................................................17

Conclusion............................................................................................................................20

References.............................................................................................................................21
INTRODUCTION:
Euthanasia (meaning "good death") refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life to
relieve pain and suffering. Like other terms borrowed from history, the "euthanasia" has had
different meanings depending on usage. The first apparent usage of the term "euthanasia"
belongs to the historian Suetonius who described how the Emperor Augustus, "dying quickly
and without suffering in the arms of his wife, Livia experienced the 'euthanasia' he had
wished for."The word "euthanasia" was first used in a medical context by Francis Bacon in
the 17th century, to refer to an easy, painless, happy death, during which it was a "physician's
responsibility to alleviate the 'physical sufferings' of the body." Bacon referred to an
"outward euthanasia"—the term "outward" he used to distinguish from a spiritual concept—
the euthanasia "which regards the preparation of the soul."

In current usage, one approach to defining euthanasia has been to mirror Suetonius, regarding
it as the "painless inducement of a quick death". However, it is argued that this approach fails
to properly define euthanasia, as it leaves open a number of possible actions which would
meet the requirements of the definition, but would not be seen as euthanasia. In particular,
these include situations where a person kills another, painlessly, but for no reason beyond that
of personal gain; or accidental deaths which are quick and painless, but not intentional.

CLASSIFICATION OF EUTHANASIA:
Euthanasia may be classified according to whether a person gives informed consent into three
types: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary1. There is a debate within the medical and
bioethics literature about whether or not the non-voluntary (and by extension, involuntary)
killing of patients can be regarded as euthanasia, irrespective of intent or the patient's
circumstances. In the definitions offered by Beauchamp & Davidson and, later, by Wreen,
consent on the part of the patient was not considered to be one of their criteria, although it
may have been required to justify euthanasia. However, others see consent as essential.

VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia conducted with the consent of the patient is termed voluntary euthanasia. Active
voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Passive
voluntary euthanasia is legal throughout the U.S. per Cruzan v. Director, Missouri
Department of Health. When the patient brings about his or her own death with the assistance
of a physician, the term assisted suicide is often used instead. Assisted suicide is legal in
Switzerland and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Montana.
NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia conducted where the consent of the patient is unavailable is termed non-voluntary
euthanasia. Examples include child euthanasia, which is illegal worldwide but decriminalized
under certain specific circumstances in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol.

INVOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia conducted against the will of the patient is termed involuntary euthanasia.
Voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia can all be further divided into passive or
active variants.

PASSIVE EUTHANASIA
Passive euthanasia entails the withholding of common treatments, such as antibiotics,
necessary for the continuance of life. in "passive euthanasia" the doctors are not actively
killing anyone; they are simply not saving him. While we usually applaud someone who
saves another person's life, we do not normally condemn someone for failing to do so.

ACTIVE EUTHANASIA
Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill a person e.g. a lethal
injection given to a person with terminal cancer who is in terrible agony. Passive euthanasia
entails withholding of medical treatment for continuance of life, e.g. withholding of
antibiotics where without giving it a patient is likely to die, or removing the heart lung
machine, from a patient in coma. Active euthanasia is taking specific steps to cause the
patient's death, such as injecting the patient with some lethal substance, e.g. sodium pentothal
which causes a person deep sleep in a few seconds, and the person instantaneously and
painlessly dies in this deep sleep. A distinction is sometimes drawn between euthanasia and
physician assisted dying, the difference being in who administers the lethal medication. In
euthanasia, a physician or third party administers it, while in physician assisted suicide it is
the patient himself who does it, though on the advice of the doctor. In many countries/States
the latter is legal while the former is not.

In India active euthanasia is illegal and a crime under section 302 or at least section 304 IPC.
Physician assisted suicide is a crime under section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide).

LEGAL STATUS:
West's Encyclopedia of American Law states that "a 'mercy killing' or euthanasia is generally
considered to be a criminal homicide" and is normally used as a synonym of homicide
committed at a request made by the patient.

The judicial sense of the term "homicide" includes any intervention undertaken with the
express intention of ending a life, even to relieve intractable suffering. Not all homicide is
unlawful. Two designations of homicide that carry no criminal punishment are justifiable and
excusable homicide. In most countries this is not the status of euthanasia. The term
"euthanasia" is usually confined to the active variety; the University of Washington website
states that "euthanasia generally means that the physician would act directly, for instance by
giving a lethal injection, to end the patient's life". Physician-assisted suicide is thus not
classified as euthanasia by the US State of Oregon, where it is legal under the Oregon Death
with Dignity Act, and despite its name, it is not legally classified as suicide either. Unlike
physician-assisted suicide, withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatments with patient
consent (voluntary) is almost unanimously considered, at least in the United States, to be
legal. The use of pain medication in order to relieve suffering, even if it hastens death, has
been held as legal in several court decisions. Some governments around the world have
legalized voluntary euthanasia but generally it remains as a criminal homicide. In the
Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia has been legalized, it still remains homicide
although it is not prosecuted and not punishable if the perpetrator (the doctor) meets certain
legal exceptions.

LAWS RELATED TO EUTHANASIA:

RIGHTS OF THE TERMINALLY ILL ACT 1995-

The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 (NT) was a controversial law legalising
euthanasia passed by Australia's Northern Territory in 1995 and, for all practical purposes,
nullified in 1997 by the federal Parliament. Dr Philip Nitschke, the first doctor in the world to
administer legal, voluntary euthanasia, founded EXIT International in response to the
overturning of the Act.

While voluntary euthanasia had previously been condoned officially in the Netherlands and
the US state of Oregon, the act was the first time that a legislative assembly passed a law
explicitly legalising euthanasia.

Provisions of Act

Passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 25 May 1995 under the
stewardship of Marshall Perron, and entering into law on 1 July 1996, the Act allowed
terminally ill patients to commit medically assisted suicide, either by the direct involvement
of a physician or by procurement of drugs. It required a somewhat lengthy application
process, designed to ensure that the patients were both mentally competent to make the
decision and in fact terminally ill. Under the Act:

 A patient had to be over 18 and be mentally and physically competent to request his
or her own death.
 The request had to be supported by three doctors, including a specialist who
confirmed that the patient was terminally ill and a psychiatrist who certified that the
patient was not suffering from treatable depression.
 Once the paperwork was complete, a nine-day cooling-off period was required before
the death could proceed.

Reaction to Act

The passage of the bill — one of the first of its kind in the world — provoked a furore in
Australia, and indeed in much of the rest of the world. The Act received both widespread
support from "death with dignity" and right to die groups who saw it as model to be followed
elsewhere, and widespread condemnation from euthanasia opponents, such as right to life
groups, who sought to overturn it.

Opponents also included the Australian Medical Association.

Use of Act

While the law was in effect, four people committed suicide through its provisions.The
first was carpenter Bob Dent, 66, who died on 22 September 1996. Dent was an Australian
prostate cancer sufferer who became Australia's first person to lawfully end his life by means
of physician assisted suicide. Dent, who had been suffering from prostate cancer for five
years in what he called "a rollercoaster of pain", left an open letter when he died that stated:
"If I were to keep a pet animal in the same condition I am in, I would be prosecuted. If you
disagree with voluntary euthanasia, then don't use it, but don't deny the right to me to use it."
He died with help from Dr Philip Nitschke.

The law applied to nonresidents as well and one nonresident did take advantage of the law. A
resident of South Australia, Janet Mills, 52, came to Darwin in December 1996. She had
suffered for some 10 years from a rare disease known as Mycosis Fungoides. She used Dr.
Nitschke's device to take her life on 2 January 1997.

In addition, an anonymous 69-year-old male cancer patient used the law and Dr Nitschke's
device to die on 22 January 1997. A further two people had received approval to use the law
when the law was nullified; a proposed amendment to the Voluntary Euthanasia Laws Bill
allowing them to proceed did not pass.

Overturning of the Act

The Northern Territory legislature proved to be unwavering in its support for the Act, and the
Act's repeal did not appear to be forthcoming. Support in the rest of Australia was much
weaker, however, and opponents began turning to the Commonwealth (federal) Parliament,
demanding it overturn the law, which it had the power to do since the Northern Territory was
a territory rather than a state. While the federal parliament could not have overturned an
identical state law, self-governing territories such as the Northern Territory, are in a
somewhat different position. Unlike the states which are sovereign entities possessing
legislative power in their own right, a territory's legislative power is derived by way of a
grant from the Commonwealth Parliament which still retains the power -- in practice very
rarely exercised -- to legislate for the territory.

On 25 March 1997, the federal Parliament passed the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, which,
although not technically repealing the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, for all practical
purposes rendered it of no legal effect. Rather than repeal the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act
(which it could have done), the Commonwealth Parliament instead amended the Northern
Territory (Self-Government) Act (the act under which the Commonwealth Parliament has
delegated legislative power to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly -- effectively the
territory's "constitution" or "charter"), removing the Territory's constitutional power to pass
any law permitting euthanasia. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act technically remains in
force in the Northern Territory, but to the extent that it permits euthanasia it is
constitutionally invalid and of no legal effect.
Although passed as a reaction to the situation in the Northern Territory, the Euthanasia Laws
Act 1997 made similar amendments with respect to Australia's two other self-governing
territories, The Australian Capital Territory and Norfolk Island, also preventing them from
passing a law permitting euthanasia. The Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 has no effect on the
power of an Australian state to pass any law permitting euthanasia and it expressly leaves
open the possibility of a territory passing laws regarding the withholding of life support.

OREGON DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT:

Measure 16 of 1994 established the U.S. state of Oregon's Death with Dignity Act (ORS
127.800-995), which legalizes physician-assisted dying with certain restrictions. Passage of
this initiative made Oregon the first U.S. state and one of the first jurisdictions in the world to
permit some terminally ill patients to determine the time of their own death.

The measure was approved in the November 8, 1994 general election. 627,980 votes (51.3%)
were cast in favor, 596,018 votes (48.7%) against. Measure 51, referred in the wake of
Washington v. Glucksberg by the state legislature in November, 1997, sought to repeal the
Death with Dignity act, but was rejected by 60% of voters. The act was challenged by the
George W. Bush administration, but was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in
Gonzales v. Oregon in 2006.

The law

Under the law, a capable adult Oregon resident who has been diagnosed, by a physician, with
a terminal illness that will kill the patient within six months may request in writing, from his
or her physician, a prescription for a lethal dose of medication for the purpose of ending the
patient's life. Exercise of the option under this law is voluntary and the patient must initiate
the request. Any physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider who has moral objections may
refuse to participate.

The request must be confirmed by two witnesses, at least one of whom is not related to the
patient, is not entitled to any portion of the patient's estate, is not the patient's physician, and
is not employed by a health care facility caring for the patient. After the request is made,
another physician must examine the patient's medical records and confirm the diagnosis. The
patient must be determined to be free of a mental condition impairing judgment. If the request
is authorized, the patient must wait at least fifteen days and make a second oral request before
the prescription may be written. The patient has a right to rescind the request at any time.
Should either physician have concerns about the patient's ability to make an informed
decision, or feel the patient's request may be motivated by depression or coercion, the patient
must be referred for a psychological evaluation.

The law protects doctors from liability for providing a lethal prescription for a terminally ill,
competent adult in compliance with the statute's restrictions. Participation by physicians,
pharmacists, and health care providers is voluntary. The law also specifies a patient's decision
to end his or her life shall not "have an effect upon a life, health, or accident insurance or
annuity policy."
ATTEMPTS TO REPEAL

In addition to the standard arguments against physician-assisted dying, opponents feared that
terminally ill people throughout the nation would flock to Oregon to take advantage of the
law. This fear has not been realized, largely because drafters of the law limited its use to
Oregon residents. Despite the measure's passage, implementation was tied up in the courts for
several years.

In 1997, the Oregon Legislative Assembly referred Measure 51, which would have repealed
the act, to the ballot.

Proponents of Measure 51 argued that the Death with Dignity Act lacked a mandatory
counseling provision, a family notification provision, strong reporting requirements, or a
strong residency requirement. Measure 51 opponents argued that sending the measure back to
voters was disrespectful considering they had already passed Measure 16 via the initiative
process. They also felt that the safeguards in the Death with Dignity Act were adequate.

Measure 51 was defeated in the November 4, 1997 special election with 445,830 votes in
favor, and 666,275 votes against.

Some member of United States Congress, notably Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma, tried to
block implementation of Measure 16, but failed.

In 2002, federal judge Robert E. Jones blocked a move by United States Attorney General
John Ashcroft to suspend the license for prescribing drugs covered in the Controlled
Substances Act of doctors who prescribed life-ending medications under the Oregon law. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the block, stating that the "Attorney General lacked
Congress' requisite authorization".

In October 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Gonzales v. Oregon
to determine the fate of the Death with Dignity law. Arguing on behalf of the state was
Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson. Oregon's five Democratic
members of Congress also filed a brief in support of the State's position. United States
Solicitor General Paul Clement argued on behalf of the Bush administration, which
challenged Oregon's right to regulate the practice of medicine when that practice entails
prescribing federally controlled substances. On January 17, 2006, the court ruled 6–3 in favor
of Oregon, upholding the law.

WASHINGTON DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT:

Initiative 1000 (I-1000) of 2008 established the U.S. state of Washington's Death with
Dignity Act (RCW 70.245), which legalizes physician-assisted dying with certain
restrictions. Passage of this initiative made Washington the second U.S. state to permit some
terminally ill patients to determine the time of their own death. The effort was headed by
former Governor Booth Gardner.
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS IN THE INITIATIVE

The official ballot summary for the measure, slightly amended following a February 2008
court challenge, is, "This measure would permit terminally ill, competent, adult Washington
residents medically predicted to die within six months to request and self-administer lethal
medication prescribed by a physician. The measure requires two oral and one written request,
two physicians to diagnose the patient and determine the patient is competent, a waiting
period, and physician verification of an informed patient decision. Physicians, patients and
others acting in good faith compliance would have criminal and civil immunity."

Provisions in the law include:

 The patient must be an adult (18 or over) resident of the state of Washington
 The patient must be mentally competent, verified by two physicians (or referred to a
mental health evaluation)
 The patient must be terminally ill with less than 6 months to live, verified by two
physicians.
 The patient must make voluntary requests, without coercion, verified by two
physicians
 The patient must be informed of all other options including palliative and hospice care
 There is a 15 day waiting period between the first oral request and a written request
 There is a 48 hour waiting period between the written request and the writing of the
prescription
 The written request must be signed by two independent witnesses, at least one of
whom is not related to the patient or employed by the health care facility
 The patient is encouraged to discuss with family (not required because of
confidentiality laws)
 The patient may change their mind at any time and rescind the request
 The attending physician may sign the patient's death certificate which must list the
underlying terminal disease as the cause of death.

LAW IN INDIA:
In India abetment of suicide (Section 306 Indian Penal Code) and attempt to suicide
(Section 309 of Indian Penal Code) are both criminal offences. This is in contrast to many
countries such as USA where attempt to suicide is not a crime.

. The Constitution Bench of the Indian Supreme Court in Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab,
1996(2) SCC 648 held that both euthanasia and assisted suicide are not lawful in India.
That decision overruled the earlier two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in P.
Rathinam vs. Union of India, 1994(3) SCC 394. The Court held that the right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die (vide para 33).

In Gian Kaur's case (supra) the Supreme Court approved of the decision of the House of
Lords in Airedale's case (supra), and observed that euthanasia could be made lawful only
by legislation.

Sections 306 and 309 IPC read as under :

 "306. Abetment of suicide -If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission
of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

309.Attempt to commit suicide - Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act
towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for
a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both."

WHAT IS EUTHANASIA?
Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person's life to relieve suffering.
The term Euthanasia comes from two Ancient Greek words: ‗Eu‗ means ‗Good‗, and
‗thantos‗ means ‗death‗, so Euthanasia means ‗good death‗. It is an act or practice of
ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or in an incurable condition
by injection or by suspending extra ordinary medical treatment in order to free him of
intolerable pain or from terminal illness. Euthanasia is defined as an intentional killing by an
act or omission of person whose life is felt is not to be worth living. It is also known as
‗Mercy Killing‗ which is an act where the individual who, is in an irremediable condition or
has no chances of survival as he is suffering from painful life, ends his life in a painless
manner. It is a gentle, easy and painless death. It implies the procuring of an individual‗s
death, so as to avoid or end pain or suffering, especially of individuals suffering from
incurable diseases. Oxford dictionary defines it as the painless killing of a person who has an
incurable disease or who is in an irreversible coma.
A person who undergoes euthanasia usually has an incurable condition. But there are other
instances where some people want their life to be ended.
In many cases, it is carried out at the person's request but there are times when they may be
too ill and the decision is made by relatives, medics or, in some instances, the courts.
Euthanasia is against the law in the UK where it is illegal to help anyone kill themselves.
Voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide can lead to imprisonment of up to 14 years.
The issue has been at the centre of very heated debates for many years and is surrounded by
religious, ethical and practical considerations.

EUTHANASIA AND ITS ETHICS

Euthanasia raises a number of agonising moral dilemmas:
 Is it ever right to end the life of a terminally ill patient who is undergoing severe pain
and suffering?
 Under what circumstances can euthanasia be justifiable, if at all?
 Is there a moral difference between killing someone and letting them die?
At the heart of these arguments are the different ideas that people have about the meaning and
value of human existence.
Should human beings have the right to decide on issues of life and death?
There are also a number of arguments based on practical issues.
Some people think that euthanasia shouldn't be allowed, even if it was morally right, because
it could be abused and used as a cover for murder.
Why euthanasia should be allowed
Those in favor of euthanasia argue that a civilized society should allow people to die in
dignity and without pain, and should allow others to help them do so if they cannot manage it
on their own.
They say that our bodies are our own, and we should be allowed to do what we want with
them. So it's wrong to make anyone live longer than they want. In fact, making people go on
living when they don't want to violates their personal freedom and human rights. It's immoral,
they say to force people to continue living in suffering and pain.

Reason for euthanasia to be forbidden

Religious opponents of euthanasia believe that life is given by God, and only God should
decide when to end it.
Other opponents fear that if euthanasia was made legal, the laws regulating it would be
abused, and people would be killed who didn't really want to die.

Changing attitudes
The Times (24 January 2007) reported that, according to the 2007 British Social Attitudes
survey, 80% of the public said they wanted the law changed to give terminally ill patients the
right to die with a doctor's help.
In the same survey, 45% supported giving patients with non-terminal illnesses the option of
euthanasia. "A majority" was opposed to relatives being involved in a patient's death

Killing or letting die

Euthanasia can be carried out either by taking actions, including giving a lethal injection, or
by not doing what is necessary to keep a person alive (such as failing to keep their feeding
tube going).

Euthanasia and pain relief.

It's not euthanasia to give a drug in order to reduce pain, even though the drug causes the
patient to die sooner. This is because the doctor's intention was to relieve the pain, not to kill
the patient. This argument is sometimes known as the Doctrine of Double Effect.
.
Why people want Euthanasia
Most people think unbearable pain is the main reason people seek euthanasia, but some
surveys in the USA and the Netherlands showed that less than a third of requests for
euthanasia were because of severe pain.
Terminally ill people can have their quality of life severely damaged by physical conditions
such as incontinence, nausea and vomiting, breathlessness, paralysis and difficulty in
swallowing.

Psychological factors that cause people to think of euthanasia include depression, fearing loss
of control or dignity, feeling a burden, or dislike of being dependent.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA:
There is a conceptual distinction between suicide and euthanasia. In a suicide a man
voluntarily kills himself by stabbing, poisoning or by any other way. No doubt in suicide one
intentionally attempts to take his life. It is an act or instance of intentionally killing oneself
mostly due to depression or various reasons such as frustration in love, failure in
examinations or in getting a good job etc. on the other hand, in euthanasia there is an action
of some other person to bring to an end the life of a third person. In euthanasia, a third person
is either actively or passively involved i.e he aids or abets the killing of another person. It is
important to mention in this context that there is also a difference between ‗assisted suicide‗
and ‗euthanasia‗. Assisted suicide is an act which intentionally helps another to commit
suicide, for example by providing him with the means to do so. When it is a doctor who helps
a patient to kill himself (by providing a prescription for lethal medication) it is a ‗physician
assisted suicide‗. Thus, in assisted suicide the patient is in complete control of the process
that leads to death because he/she is the person who performs the act of suicide. The other
person simply helps (for example, providing the means for carrying out the action). On the
other hand, euthanasia may be active such as when a doctor gives a lethal injection to a
patient or passive such as when a doctor removes life support system of the terminally ill
human.

EUTHANASIA CLASSIFICATIONS
Euthanasia is a complex matter; there are many different types of euthanasia. Euthanasia may
be classified according to consent into three types.
1. Voluntary euthanasia- when the person who is killed has requested to be killed.
2. Non-voluntary euthanasia- when the person who is killed made no request and gave
no consent. In other words, it is done when the person is unable to communicate his wishes,
being in coma.
3. Involuntary euthanasia- when the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the
contrary. In other words, it is involuntary when the person killed gives his consent not to die.

There is a debate within the medical and bioethics literature on whether or not the non-
voluntary or involuntary killing of persons can be regarded as euthanasia, irrespective of
consent. Some say that consent is not considered to be one of their criteria. However, others
see consent as essential. According to them killing of a person without the person‗s consent
(non-voluntary or involuntary) is not euthanasia. It is murder and hence euthanasia can be
voluntary only. Euthanasia can be also divided into two types according to means of death.

1. Active euthanasia- It is also known as ‗Positive Euthanasia‗ or ‗Aggressive

Euthanasia‗.It refers to causing intentional death of a human being by direct
intervention. It is a direct action performed to end useless life and a meaningless
existence. For example, by giving lethal dose of a drug or by giving a lethal injection.
Active euthanasia is usually a quicker means of causing death and all forms of active
euthanasia are illegal.

2. Passive euthanasia-It is also known as ‗Negative Euthanasia‗ or ‗Non-Aggressive

Euthanasia‗. It is intentionally causing death by not providing essential, necessary and
ordinary care or food and water. It implies to discontinuing, withdrawing or removing
artificial life support system. Passive euthanasia is usually slower and more uncomfortable
than active. Most forms of voluntary, passive and some instance of non-voluntary, passive
euthanasia are legal.

EUTHANASIA IN INDIA

As soon as a baby is born in India, he is clothed with basic human rights. Right to life is one
of the basic as well as fundamental right without which all rights cannot be enjoyed. Right to
life means a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that such human being
has the right not to be killed by another human being. But the question arises that if a person
has a right to live, whether he has a right not to live i.e whether he has a right to die? While
giving this answer, the Indian courts expressed different opinions. In M.S Dubal vs. State of
Maharastra, the Bombay High Court held that right to life under article 21 of the Indian
Constitution includes ‗right to die‗. On the other hand, in Chenna Jagadeeswar vs. State of
AP, the AP High Court said that right to die is not a fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. However, in P. Rathinam‗s case Supreme Court of India observed that the
‗right to live‗ includes ‗right not to live‗ i.e right to die or to terminate one‗s life. But again
in Giain Kaur vs State of Punjab, a five member bench overruled the P.Rathainam‗s case and
held that right to life under Article 21 does not include Right to die or right to be killed.

The term ‗Right to life‗ including the right to live with human dignity would mean the
existence of such right up to the end of natural life. This may include the right of a dying man
to die with dignity. But the ‗right to die with dignity‗ is not to be confused with the ‗right to
die‗ an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life. Thus the concept of right to life is
central to the debate on the issue of Euthanasia. One of the controversial issues in the recent
past has been the question of legalizing the right to die or Euthanasia. Euthanasia is
controversial since it involves the deliberate termination of human life. Patient suffering from
terminal diseases are often faced with great deal of pain as the diseases gradually worsens
until it kills them and this may be so frightening for them that they would rather end their life
than suffering it. So the question is whether people should be given assistance in killing
themselves, or whether they should be left to suffer the pain cause by terminal illness
throughout their life.

This project thus deals with one of the most debated subjects in the world, is euthanasia. The
debate is regarding the legalization of euthanasia. This debate is a continuing one as some
people are of the view that life is sacred and no one has got the right to end it whereas on the
other hand some say that life belongs to oneself and so each person has got the right to decide
what he wants to do with it even if it amounts to dying.
 THE SCENARIO OF EUTHANASIA AROUND THE
WORLD

In England, following a series of decisions of the House of Laws relating to euthanasia vary
greatly and are constantly subject to changes as cultural values shift and better ‗Palliative
care‗ or treatments become available. In some countries it is legalised or in others, it is
criminalized.

 Australia
The Northern Territory of Australia became the first country to legalize euthanasia by
passing the Rights of the Terminally ILL Act, 1996. It was held to be legal in the case
of Wake v. Northern Territory of Australia by the Supreme Court of Northern
Territory of Australia. Subsequently the Euthanasia Laws Act, 1997 legalised it.
Although it is a crime in most Australian states to assist euthanasia, prosecution have
been rare. In 2002, the matter that the relatives and friends who provided moral
support to an elder woman to commit suicide was extensively investigated by police,
but no charges were made.

 Belgium
The Belgian Parliament had enacted the ‗Belgium Act on Euthanasia‗ in September
2002, which defines euthanasia as ―intentionally terminating life by someone
other than the person concerned at the latter‗s request‖ . Requirements for allowing
euthanasia are very strict which includes the patient must be major, has made the
request voluntary, well considered and repeated and he/she must be in a condition of
consent and unbearable physical or mental suffering that can be alleviated. All these
acts must be referred to the authorities before allowing in order to satisfying essential
requirements.

 Netherlands
Holland is the first country in the world to legalise both euthanasia and assisted
suicide in 2002. According to the penal code of the Netherlands killing a person on
his request is punishable with twelve years of imprisonment or fine and also a
assisting a person to commit suicide is also punishable by imprisonment up to three
years or fine. In spite of this provision, the courts of Netherlands have come to
interpret the law as providing a defence to charges of voluntary euthanasia and
assisted suicide. Thus, though active euthanasia is technically unlawful in the
Netherlands, it is considered justified (not legally punishable) if the physician follows
the guidelines.

 Canada
In Canada, patients have the right to refuse life sustaining treatments but they do not
have the right to demand for euthanasia or assisted suicide. The Supreme Court of
Canada in Rodriguez vs Attorney,1994 General for British Columbia said that in the
case of assisted suicide the interest of the state will prevail over individual‗s interest.

 U.S.A

There is a distinction between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. While active
euthanasia is prohibited but physicians are not held liable if they withhold or
 withdraw the life sustaining treatment of the patient either on his request or at the
request of patient‗s authorized representative. Euthanasia has been made totally
illegal by the United States Supreme Court in the cases Washington v. Glucksberg and
Vacco v. Quill. Only in Oregon, a state in America, physician assisted suicide has
been legalized in 1994 under Death and Dignity Act. In April 2005, California State
legislative committee approved a bill and has become 2nd state to legalise assisted
suicide.
 England
Lords it is now settled that a person has a right to refuse life sustaining treatment as
part of his rights of autonomy and self- determination. The House of Lords also
permitted non voluntary euthanasia in case of patients in a persistent vegetative state.
Moreover in a recent case, a British High Court has granted a woman, paralyzed from
neck, the right to die by having life support system switched off (Dr. S.S Jaswal and
S.C Baseen,civil and military law journal,p.g-90).

 The United Kingdom

Euthanasia is illegal in United Kingdom but on November 5, 2006 Britain Royal
College of obstructions and gynaecologists submitted a proposal to the Nuffield
Counsel of Bioethics calling for consideration of permitting the euthanasia of disabled
new-born.

Why euthanasia should not be legalised?

1. The human life is gift of God and taking life is wrong and immoral human beings cannot
be given the right to play the part of God. The one who suffers pain is only due to one‗s
karma. Thus euthanasia devalues human life.

2. It is totally against the medical ethics, morals and public policy. Medical ethics call for
nursing, care giving and healing and not ending the life of the patient. In the present time,
medical science is advancing at a great pace. Thus even the most incurable diseases are
becoming curable today. Thus instead of encouraging a patient to end his life, the medical
practitioners should encourage the patients to lead their painful life with strength which
should be moral as well as physical. The decision to ask for euthanasia is not made solely by
the patient. Even the relatives of the patient pay an important role in doing that. Hence, it is
probable that the patient comes under pressure and takes such a drastic step of ending his life.
Of course in such cases the pressure is not physical, it is rather moral and psychological
which proves to be much stronger. The patient himself starts to feel that he is a burden on the
relatives when they take such a decision for him and finally he also succumbs to it.

3. It is feared that if euthanasia is legalised then other groups of more vulnerable people will
become at risk of falling into taking that option themselves. Groups that represent disabled
people are against the legalisation of euthanasia on the ground that such groups of vulnerable
people would feel obliged to opt for euthanasia as they may see themselves as a burden to
society.

4. It has a slippery slope effect, for example firstly it can be legalised only for terminally ill
people but later on laws can be changed and then it may allow for non- voluntary or
involuntary.
5. Acceptance of euthanasia as an option could exercise a detrimental effect a societal
attitudes and on the doctor patient relationship. The doctor patient relationship is based on
mutual trust; it is feared this trust may be lost if euthanasia is legalised.

6. When suicide is not allowed then euthanasia should also not be allowed. A person commits
suicide when he goes into a state of depression and has no hope from the life. Similar is the
situation when a person asks for euthanasia. But such tendency can be lessened by proper
care of such patients and showing hope in them.
7. Patient would not be able to trust either doctors or their relatives as many of them were
taking about patient‗s painless dignified death and it became a euphemism for assisted
murder.
8. Miracles do happen in our society especially when it is a matter of life and death, there are
examples of patients coming out of coma after years and we should not forget human life is
all about hope.

FOLLOWINGS ARE THE REASONS TO LEGALISE EUTHANASIA:

1. Euthanasia means ending the life a person who is suffering from some terminal illness
which is making his life painful as well as miserable or in other words ending a life which is
not worth living. But the problem is that how should one decide whether his life is any longer
worth living or not. Thus, the term euthanasia is rather too ambiguous. This has been a topic
for debate since a long time i.e. whether euthanasia should be allowed or not. At present, the
debate is mainly regarding active euthanasia rather than passive euthanasia. The dispute is
regarding the conflicts of interests: the interest of the society and that of the individual.
Which out of these should prevail over the other? According to the supporters of euthanasia
the decision of the patients should be accepted. If on the other hand we weigh the social
values with the individual interest then we will clearly see that here the interest of the
individual will outweigh the interest of the society. The society aims at interest of the
individuals rather it is made with the purpose of assuring a dignified and a peaceful life to all.
Now if the individual who is under unbearable pain is not able to decide for himself then it
surely will hamper his interest. In that case it will surely be a negation of his dignity and
human rights.
2. Euthanasia provides a way to relieve the intolerably extreme pain and suffering of an
individual. It relieves the terminally ill people from a lingering death.
3. The essence of human life is to live a dignified life and to force the person to live in an
undignified way is against the person‗s choice. Thus it expresses the choice of a person
which is a fundamental principle.
4. In many developing and under developed countries like India, there is lack of funds. There
is shortage of hospital space. So, the energy of doctors and hospital beds can be used for
those people whose life can be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die.
Another important point on which the supporters of euthanasia emphasize is that a lot of
medical facilities which amount a lot are being spent on these patients who are in any case
going to die. Thus, they argue that rather than spending those on such patients, it will be
much better to use such facilities for those who have even fair chances of recovery.
5. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution clearly provides for living with dignity. A person has
a right to live a life with at least minimum dignity and if that standard is falling below that
minimum level then a person should be given a right to end his life. Supporters of euthanasia
also point out to the fact that as passive euthanasia has been allowed, similarly active
euthanasia must also be allowed. A patient will wish to end his life only in cases of excessive
agony and would prefer to die a painless death rather than living a miserable life with that
agony and suffering. Thus, from a moral point of view it will be better to allow the patient die
painlessly when in any case he knows that he is going to die because of that terminal illness.

6. Its aim is altruistic and beneficial as it is an act of painlessly putting to death to those
persons who are suffering from painful and incurable diseases. So, the motive behind this is
to help rather than harm.

7. It not only relives the unbearable pain of a patient but also relieves the relatives of a patient
from the mental agony.
8. A point which is often raised against the supporters of euthanasia is that if such right will
be granted to the terminally ill patients then there will be chances of abusing it. But the
supporters argue that every right involves a risk of being abused but that doesn‗t mean that
the right itself should be denied to the people. We should rather look at the brighter side of it
than thinking of it being abused.

CONCLUSION

If we carefully examine the opposition to the legalization of euthanasia, we can conclude that
the most important point that the opponents raise is that it will lead to its misuse by the
doctors. Thus, it is submitted that when a patient or his relatives can willingly put his life in
the hands of the doctor trusting him, then why can‗t a doctor be given such discretion to
decide what will be in favour of his patient. Another doubt that is often raised is that if the
doctors will be given discretion to practice voluntary euthanasia then surely it will gradually
lead to asking for involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia. As the patient himself out of his
pain and agony is asking for death, doctor should not increasing that pain of his should allow
euthanasia. It has been ruled in the Gian Kaur case that Article 21 does not include right to
die by the Supreme Court. But one may try to read it as is evident in the rights of privacy,
autonomy and self-determination, which is what has been done by the Courts of United State
and England. Thus, we can see that as the said right has been included in the ambit of Article
21, so this can also be included in Article 21. This question was not raised in the case earlier.
Again the point that remains unanswered is regarding the abuse of this right by the doctors.
But relevant safeguards can be put on this right and thus its abuse can be avoided. One of the
safeguards can be that a proper quasi-judicial authority having a proper knowledge in the
medical field can be appointed to look into the request of the patient and the steps taken by
the doctor. To make it more full proof some two or three assistant officials including one
from the legal field can also be appointed.. Thus, considering the financial and medical
facilities also, the question still lies open that what will be better-allowing euthanasia or not
allowing euthanasia.

Thus, Euthanasia could be legalized, but the laws would have to be very stringent. Every case
will have to be carefully monitored taking into consideration the point of views of the patient,
the relatives and the doctors. But whether Indian society is mature enough to face this, as it is
a matter of life and death, is yet to be seen.
CASE LAW STUDY
THE ARUNA SHANBAUG CASE WHICH CHANGED EUTHANASIA
LAWS IN INDIA :
The Supreme Court on March 9 ruled that individuals had a right to die with dignity,
allowing passive euthanasia with guidelines. The need to change euthanasia laws was
triggered by the famous Aruna Shanbaug case. The top court in 2011 had recognised
passive euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaug case by which it had permitted withdrawal of
life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position to make an informed decision.

THE ATTACK
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug was a nurse in the King Edwards Memorial Hospital in
Mumbai. In November 1973, she was assaulted by ward boy, Sohanlal Bhartha
Valmiki, of the same hospital while changing her clothes in the hospital basement.
Valmiki strangulated Shanbaug with a dog chain around her neck.

LIVING IN A COMA
The attack cut off oxygen supply from her brain leaving her blind, deaf, paralysed and
in a vegetative state for the next 42 years.From the day of the assault till the day she
died on May 18, 2015, Aruna could only survive on mashed food. She could not move
her hands or legs, could not talk or perform the basic functions of a human being

WHAT HAPPENED TO VALMIKI

In 1974, Valmiki was charged with attempted murder and for robbing Aruna's
earrings, but not for rape. The police did not take into account that she was sodomized.
A trial court sentenced Valmiki seven years imprisonment. This was reduced to six
years because he had already served a year in lock up. Valmiki walked out of jail in
1980 and still claims he did not rape Shanbaug.

FACING OPPOSITION
The Supreme Court accepted the petition and constituted a medical board to report
back on Aruna's health and medical condition. The medical board, comprising three
eminent doctors, reported that the patient was not brain dead and responded to some
situations in her own way. They felt that there was no need for euthanasia in the case.

The staff at KEM Hospital and the Bombay Municipal Corporation filed their
counter-petitions in the case, opposing euthanasia for Aruna. The nurses at KEM
Hospital were quite happy to look after the patient and they had been doing that for
years before petitioner Pinky Virani emerged on the scene.

FINALLY AT PEACE
On May 18, 2015, Shanbaug then 66, died of severe pneumonia. She was on ventilator
support in KEM's acute care unit.
DECEMBER 28, 2018

In March this year, the Supreme Court in a landmark judgement passed in the case Common
Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, recognized right to die with dignity as a fundamental
right. The Bench has hence recognized the concepts of passive euthanasia and living will in
India.What is passive euthanasia– In literal sense passive euthanasia means withholding
treatment or supportive measures which would have otherwise saved the patient‘s life. On the
other hand active euthanasia means to introduce something to cause death.

What is a living will– It refers to the principle where a patient‘s consent has been expressed at
an earlier date before he became unconscious or otherwise incapable of communicating it as by
a `living will‘ or by giving written authority to doctors in anticipation of his incompetent
situation.

An essential remark made by the Bench expressing it‘s concern over permitting euthanasia was
that the legal question does not singularly remain in the set framework of law or, for that matter,
morality or dilemma of the doctors but also encapsulates social values and the family mindset to
make a resolute decision which ultimately is a cause of concern for all. A very intriguing
concern had been raised by the Petitioner in the case, whereby it averred that due to the
advancement of modern medical technology pertaining to medical science and respiration, a
situation has been created where the dying process of the patient is unnecessarily prolonged
causing distress and agony to the patient as well as to the near and dear ones and, consequently,
the patient is in a persistent vegetative state thereby allowing free intrusion. This reminds us of
one of the most alarming cases of euthanasia in India, the case of Aruna Shaunbaug In this case,
the Petitioner was in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) for 37 long years. In the case, the Two-
Judge Bench of the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia subject to certain conditions and
subject to the approval of the High Court after following the due procedure as laid down by the
Court in the case.
 Approval by High Court to Withdraw Life Support- Directions in Aruna Shaunbaug case

While laying down the procedure whereby the High Court could grant approval for withdrawing
life support of an incompetent person under Article 226 of the Constitution held that when such
application is filed, the Chief Justice of the High Court should forthwith constitute a Bench of at
least two Judges who should decide to grant approval or not and before doing so, the Bench
should seek the opinion of a Committee of three reputed doctors to be nominated by the Bench
after consulting such medical authorities/medical practitioners as it may deem fit. Amongst the
three doctors, as directed, one should be a Neurologist, one should be a Psychiatrist and the third
a Physician.

The Court further directed that the committee of three doctors nominated by the Bench should
carefully examine the patient and also consult the record of the patient as well as take the views
of the hospital staff and submit its report to the High Court Bench. Simultaneously with
appointing the committee of doctors, the High Court Bench shall also issue notice to the State
and close relatives e.g. parents, spouse, brothers/ sisters, etc. of the patient, and in their absence
his/her next friend, and supply a copy of the report of the doctor‗s committee to them as soon as
it is available. After hearing them, the High Court Bench should give its verdict.

Conclusions made by the Supreme Court in Common Cause case

In this recent case, pursuant to extensively considering the law pertaining to right to life and
right to die alongwith relevant precedents, the Supreme Court enumerated the following
conclusions:

 The Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur‘s case held that the ―right to life‖: including right to
live with human dignity would mean the existence of such right upto the end of natural life,
which also includes the right to a dignified life upto the point of death including a dignified
procedure of death. The above right was held to be part of fundamental right enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution which we also reiterate.
 We agree with the observation made in the reference order of the three-
Judge Bench to the effect that the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur‘s case did not
express any binding view on the subject of euthanasia. We hold that no binding
view was expressed by the Bench on the subject of Euthanasia.
 The Constitution Bench, however noted a distinction between cases in which physician
decides not to provide or continue to provide for treatment and care, which could or might
prolong his life and those in which he decides to administer a lethal drug even though with
 object of relieving the patient from pain and suffering. The later was held not to be covered
under any right flowing from Article 21.
 To provide or continue to provide for treatment and care which could or might
prolong his life and those in which he decides to administer lethal drug even though with
the object of relieving the patient from pain and
suffering.The later was held not to be covered under
any right flowing from Article 21.
 Thus, the law of the land as existing today is that no one is permitted to cause death of
another person including a physician by administering any lethal drug if the objective is to
relieve the patient from pain and suffering.
 An adult human being of conscious mind is fully entitled to refuse medical treatment or to
decide not to take medical treatment and may decide to embrace the death in a natural way.
 Euthanasia as the meaning of words suggest is an act which leads to a good
death. Some positive act is necessary to characterise the action as Euthanasia. Euthanasia
is also commonly called ―assisted suicide‖ due to the above reasons.
 We are thus of the opinion that the right not to take a lifesaving treatment by a person, who
is competent to take an informed decision is not covered by the concept of euthanasia as it
is commonly understood but a decision to withdraw lifesaving treatment by a
patient who is competent to take decision as well as with regard to a patient who is not
competent to take decision can be termed as passive euthanasia, which is lawfully and
legally permissible in this country.
 The right of patient who is incompetent to express his view cannot be outside of
fold of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
 We also are of the opinion that in cases of incompetent patients who are unable to
take an informed decision, ―the best interests principle‖ be applied and such decision be
taken by specified competent medical experts and be implemented after providing a
cooling period to enable aggrieved person to approach the Court of Law.
 An advance medical directive is an individual‘s advance exercise of his autonomy on the
subject of extent of medical intervention that he wishes to allow upon his own body at a
future date, when he may not be on a position to specify his wishes. The purpose and object
of advance medical directive is to express the choice of a person regarding medical
treatment in an event when he loses capacity to take a decision. The right to execute an
advance medical directive is nothing but a step towards protection of aforesaid right by an
individual.
 Right of execution of an advance medical directive by an individual does not depend on
any recognition or legislation by a State and we are of the considered opinion that such
rights can be exercised by an individual in recognition and in affirmation of his right of
bodily integrity and self-determination.

OTHER IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS ON EUTHANASIA.:-

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab– In this case, Five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court
overruled the Supreme Court‘s holding in the case of Maruti Shri Pati Dubal v. State of
Maharashtra and P. Rathinam v. Union of India & Anr. In Maruti Shi Pati Dubal case, the
Supreme Court held Section 309 of Indian Penal Code (this makes attempt to commit
suicide a punishable offence in India) as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India. In P. Rathinam case, the Supreme Court held that the ―right to die‖ is a right
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and hence Section 309 of Indian Penal
Code was unconstitutional.

In Gian Kaur case, the Supreme Court held that both euthanasia and assisted suicide were
not lawfully valid in India.State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. V. Umed Ram Sharma- In
this case, the Apex Court observed that the right to life embraces not only physical existence
but also the quality of life as understood in its richness and fullness within the ambit of the
Constitution.
SUGGESTION.:-

In view of the compelling situation has drafted a model law for legalizing euthanasia in
India which addresses majority of the following suggestions.
Every beginning has its inevitable end however painful it may be. Similar is the case which
commenced several years before. But the positive aspect of ending research is having its
own aura i.e., it gives birth to several new beginnings.This work on legalizing euthanasia
in India is an effort undertaken in the light of an extensive debate which is advancing at an
accelerating stride and becoming increasingly prominent to provide death with dignity to
terminally ill patients who lack representation in the society. This concluding part is
expected, rightly, to be the growing glory of the present research.

The over euthanasia has to basically commence with the thread bare discussion on the
concept of life and its various aspects, such as, the value of life, quality of life, sanctity of
life, protection of life. It has been observed that not only the value but also the quality of
life is extremely important. The quality of life has been evaluated in the clinical and legal
perspective, as it targets the intrinsic value of life in the course of legalizing euthanasia.
The need for protection of life has been emphasised by moral philosophers which has
universal acceptance in a civilized society. For them, life has innate importance, and hence
irrespective of the quality of life it should be protected. Quality and sanctity of life cannot,
for sure, be considered one and the same. Rather, quality of life is in contrast to the sanctity
of life principle and it forms the heart of the euthanasia debate with the evaluative status of
life. Hence, in the opinion of the researcher though life as a concept is very important, it
should not be forced in exceptional cases, such as, terminal illness.

The principle of self-determination and the best interests of patient have been considered as
fundamental for arguing in favour of legalizing euthanasia. The argument of self-
determination provides a firm base to convince that if human beings have right to self-
determination, as a corollary, they should also have a right to die with dignity when haunted
with certain compelling conditions. Moreover, the protection and promotion of the concept
of best interests of the patients influences all concerned to be in favour of legalizing
euthanasia. Instead of suffering from pain and agony a dignified death may be in the best
interest of a terminally ill patient if the patient so wishes. All these factors provide base for
legalization of euthanasia.
 Life has intrinsic importance, however, it is suggested that sanctity of life at
least in case of terminally ill patients should not prevailover the quality of
life. The quality of life should be upheld in order to protect the dignity of
terminally ill patients.

 Quality of life should also be maintained not only in the clinical decisions
but also in the legal perspective.

 Life should be protected, but the protection should not result as a forced
burden for terminally ill patients. In exceptional situations terminally ill
patients should be allowed to die with dignity.

 Physician assisted suicide should be conceptually differentiated from the

other forms of euthanasia, for legalizing euthanasia in India. Suicide and
mercy killing should not be confused with physician assisted suicide.

 Right to refuse medical treatment, self-autonomy and informed consent form

the base for legalizing euthanasia. These concepts should be further
developed for facilitating death with dignity to terminally ill patients.

 The Courts while deciding cases of right to die should interpret laws in order
to provide justice to the terminally ill patients. Each case will have different
aspects, which should be fairly judged.

 Law allows abortion under certain conditions. Likewise, death with dignity
should also be allowed for terminally ill patients.

 There is an immediate need to modify a few provisions of the medical ethics.

According to the medical ethics a doctor cannot prescribe a deadly medicine
to a patient and also cannot participate in performing an abortion. Whereas
abortions are performed by doctors worldwide, and euthanasia in a few
countries. In order to have physician assisted suicide legalized this clause in
the medical ethics should be modified..
 The painkiller drugs like the artificial life support system should not be used
to deaden the pain for time being without providing permanent relief to the
patient.

 Research should be carried on for new medicines to cure the disease leading
to terminal illness in order to provide relief to the patient euthanasia and
strict safeguards should be incorporated in order to avoid misuse of law.
 In my point of view it also necessary to understand the pride of members
such as economically burden on family members and it also should be relief .

“ It is very True that killing human life is violation of god

commandments’, so no one has right and even one self has no right to end
the life which has been gifted by God.”
 REFERENCES

 www.wikipedia.com

 http://evirtualguru.com/essay-on-euthanasia-mercy-killing

 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/euthanasia

 http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000022

 Fry-Revere, Sigrid (2008). "Euthanasia"

 Torr, James D. (2000). Euthanasia: opposing viewpoints.

 http://www.worldrtd.net/euthanasia-fact-sheet

 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197501092920206

 www.quora.com

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1] CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY P.M. BAKSHI

2] INDIAN PENAL CODE

3] NEWS PAPERS AND LAW JOURNALS

4] ALL INDIA REPORTER

5] LEGAL WEBSITES