Raunak Jain

+919051444000 | raunakjain1999@gmail.com

RECOGNITION OF PASSIVE EUTHANASIA

Declaring the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court in a landmark judgment on
7th March 2011, passed an order allowing passive euthanasia in the country. A five-judge bench of the apex
court headed by the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and comprising Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M.
Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, issued guidelines in recognition of  “living will” made
by terminally-ill patients.
These guidelines include who can execute the will and under what conditions can the medical board endorse
passive euthanasia. The apex court further stated that its guidelines and directives shall remain in force till a
legislation is brought to deal with the issue

With religious beliefs against premature death held strong in India, right to life may weigh over the right to die
with dignity that has just been granted legal sanction by the apex court. Requests from patients suffering from
terminal medical conditions across India, have led to government and courts professing for palliative care
policies. Yet the debate has been around issues that are legal, ethical, human rights-related, health-related,
religious, economic, spiritual, social and cultural. Even though the Supreme Court has recognised the right to
die with dignity as fundamental right, major hurdles might be posed by religious communities, who mostly
oppose euthanasia in India. Medical professionals hold that passive euthanasia is already a common event in
majority of the hospitals all across the country as many poor terminally ill patients or their family members
choose to withdraw treatment because of the huge costs involved in treatment to keep them alive. However, for
the few who can afford such treatment, maintaining life with advanced medical technologies and palliative care
has become more routine. Public health experts said it is essential to assess the mental health status of the
individual seeking euthanasia. The main reasons for opting euthanasia are depression, hopelessness, pain and
lack of care. Patients can overcome their decision on euthanasia or to receive natural death when they are well
taken care of. Studies show that when patients receive adequate palliative care, requests for euthanasia
decrease. Many of them are not aware of modern pain management techniques.

In the Gian Kaur case, the apex court held that Article 21 speaks of life with dignity, and only aspects of life
which make it more dignified could be read into this Article, thereby pointing out  that the right to die was
inconsistent with it. However, later the issue of euthanasia rose to prominence in India after several noteworthy
cases including that of Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who spent 42 years in a vegetative state as a result of a violent
sexual assault. ‘Passive Euthanasia’ was legalized by the Supreme Court on 7 March 2011. Also, based on the
 Raunak Jain
+919051444000 | raunakjain1999@gmail.com

recommendations of the Law Commission, ministry of health and family welfare had prepared a draft of The
Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill patients (protection of patients and medical practitioners) in May 2016.

Upholding the right to die with dignity, the Supreme Court gave legal sanction to passive euthanasia and
execution of a living will of persons suffering from chronic terminal diseases and likely to go into a permanent
vegetative state. Euthanasia must be considered by actually putting oneself in the shoes of the patient. If one
thinks from the point of view of a relative or a loved one of the patient, one may be petrified by the thought of
withdrawing life from somebody you love. But would you want yourself to go through the same amount of
suffering? There is no straightforward answer to that.

One argument often cited against euthanasia is that science may one day find a cure. While true, this argument
is not without its pitfalls. Thanks to medical science, many diseases that used to kill thousands of people have
now been beaten. However, it is worth noting that these developments generally span multiple decades. Of the
thousands of novel therapies which are studied every year, only a handful may actually reach patients. There is
no “guarantee” of a cure, no matter how much money and effort we put in. Development in medical science is a
lengthy process and does not follow laws of probability; many patients now suffering will not live to see a cure.
There must be some light at the end of the tunnel for those who have suffered enough. Empathize, not
sympathize with such patients. Maybe, depending on the outcome of this consultation, they will someday have
a choice to die with dignity. Maybe there is still hope for Aruna Shanbaug and many more like her.

People advocating the right to life would criticize it to the nail, trying to justify that taking away one’s life is
like overreaching one’s power, similar to sinning against God, whose beautiful gift is life. But when this
beautiful gift turns to be a burden, a prolonged misery, isn’t it necessary to put an end to it rather than to
continue the intense pain and suffering? Euthanasia should not be confused with suicide. Euthanasia is strictly
related to ending one’s physical suffering. Euthanasia, in the simplest terms, is mercy killing for those patients
for whom there is no end to their pain; it’s a blessing for those who wish for a dignified death rather than
prolonged suffering. Euthanasia in Greek means “good death”. It is defined as the practice of intentionally
ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering.