COMPARATIVE LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER

EUTHANASIA : A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN

INDIA AND CANADA

Submitted to: Ms.Nikita Pattajoshi

Submitted by:
ABHIJEET SINGH
2022/LLM/001
LLM Batch 2022-23

1
Table of Contents
● Abstract
● Introduction
● 1. Meaning of Euthanasia
● 2. History of Euthanasia
● 3. Classification of Euthanasia
✔ Active Euthanasia
✔ Passive Euthanasia
✔ Non-Voluntary Euthanasia
✔ Voluntary Euthanasia

● 4. International situation of Euthanasia

● 5. Euthanasia in India
● 6. Euthanasia in Canada
● 7. Comparison between India and Canada Laws and Procedures on Euthanasia
● 8. Conclusion

2
 ABSTRACT

One of the most contentious issues in the legal community is euthanasia since it touches on
issues of medical ethics, personal autonomy, and freedom of choice. To guarantee the greatest
benefit of the nation's residents, the Supreme Court has consistently worked to interpret
constitutional provisions as broadly as feasible. In addition, the Apex Court recognised the
right to death as a crucial aspect of the right to life guaranteed by the Indian Constitution.
Through its several rulings, the Supreme Court carefully considered the legality of euthanasia
and, in the Aruna Shaunbaug case, approved passive euthanasia, greatly easing the suffering of
terminally ill people. The application of euthanasia and its legal implications in India and
Canada are the topics of this paper. The researcher have made an effort to compare the
administration of euthanasia in the two nations and critically evaluate its actual use. Examining
whether it is technically feasible to carry out euthanasia while ensuring that no one would abuse
this right is the main goal of the study work.

Keywords: Euthanasia, Mercy killing, Supreme Court of India, Constitution of India, Canada

INTRODUCTION

3
Everyone has the right to enjoy life to the fullest and to value its many gifts. However, there
are times when a person is prepared to use non-natural methods to terminate his life. A person's
life ending in an unnatural way is not a common occurrence. When a man takes his own life
via his own free will and actions, we refer to it as "suicide." However, when a guy takes his
own life through the assistance of others, it is known as "euthanasia" or "mercy killing."
Euthanasia is an extremely delicate and painless method of ending a patient's life in order to
relieve them of their excruciating and never-ending suffering. It might be described as a
dignified death.
In essence, it involves balancing humanity and empathy. It is based on the idea that a man
ought to have the freedom to conduct his life as he sees fit. Most often, euthanasia is associated
with people who are suffering from a terminal illness or who are on the verge of becoming
paralysed and have no desire to continue living. A severely disabled or near-death person
should have the option of choosing whether to live or die. The goal is to end the person's
suffering and intolerable agony while ensuring that they die in dignity. Being freed from
ongoing pain and suffering is in the patient's best interest. Euthanasia is debatable since it
depends on people's ethics, morals, and convictions.
The practice of euthanasia has generated a lot of debate throughout the globe. The debate has
grown increasingly significant in view of the ongoing developments in several nations where
euthanasia is legal, including India, Canada, England, and other countries. In a recent landmark
decision, our Supreme Court legalised passive euthanasia, allowing for the withdrawal of life
support with the patient's and their family members' consent1. The honourable court also
created the idea of a living will in order to stop its exploitation 2.

1. MEANING OF EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia can have a variety of connotations, depending on the situation and use. It might
simply be defined as a painless or pleasant death or as the alleviation of physical suffering
brought on by a severe disease or an incurable illness. Euthanasia is often referred to as "mercy
killing." It is described as "the act of murdering someone who is terminally sick and do not
want to suffer anymore" by Cambridge Dictionary. Euthanasia is most often used to end the
lives of those who are suffering from terminal illnesses or who have been on life support for a

1
Aruna Ramchnadra Shanbaug v, UOI, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2005
2
Common Cause v. Union of India, 2014 SCC 5 338

4
long period of time. Speaking specifically about euthanasia, it is defined as relieving someone
of all their suffering for their own benefit; in this case, someone kills another person without
any ulterior motives in order to relieve the patient of their unbearable and incurable suffering.

Only doctors with the consent of the patient or the patient's relatives are permitted to carry out
euthanasia, which is confined to murdering people who have been in a persistent vegetative
condition for a long time. Another essential element of euthanasia is "good intention": the wish
to die must be humanitarian, meant to eliminate excruciating pain rather than driven by self-
interest.

2. HISTORY OF EUATHANASIA
The euthanasia movement has a long history that dates back more than 700 years and has
profound roots. Hippocrates, known as "The Father of Medicine," was an opponent of
euthanasia. Hippocrates took the Hippocratic Oath because he thought that murdering created
a barrier between medical professionals and their patients. It declares that "I will not deliver
any fatal medication to anybody if requested, nor recommend any such advice." 3 Before
Hippocrates, medical professionals accepted the practice of killing patients without their
consent to end their suffering when they had lost all prospect of a full recovery.
Hemlock, a shrub that is extremely deadly, was used in ancient Greece and Rome on the island
of Kea to hasten a person's demise. Great thinkers like Socrates and Pluto were in favour of
hastening a person's death, while Hippocrates was against it.
Many people in the USA campaigned against the concept of euthanasia at the beginning of the
19th century. They believed that patients who had incurable or fatal illnesses should have the
right to commit suicide with the help of a doctor. Henry Hunt initiated the process of presenting
legislation in the Ohio General Assembly on the advice of Anna Sophina Hall. She was a key
figure in the euthanasia movement because, after witnessing her mother's painful death from a
terminal illness, she decided to end the suffering of other terminally ill patients. As a result,
she got involved in the cause and organised the American Humane Association's annual
meeting in 1905, which is regarded as the first significant public discussion on the subject in
the 20th century.4

3
Cambridge Dictionary, 18th Edition, 2011
4
History of Euthanasia, <http://www.euthanasia.com/historyeuthanasia.html >(Last visited October, 15 2022)

5
Hitler started the Nazi euthanasia programme known as "Aktion T4" in 1939 with the goal of
eradicating those who were incurably ill or had mental disabilities. 5He instructed doctors to
murder infants and young children with mental retardation, blindness, or physical abnormalities
if they are under three years old. Both older disabled children and adults, as well as infants,
might participate in this programme. Through this operation, thousands of individuals were
slaughtered on the basis of disability and religious views while Genocide was covered up as
euthanasia.
Euthanasia is a method that allows a person to pass away painlessly from a chronic disease; it
does not promote the killing of individuals for moral reasons or due to impairments.

3. CLASSIFICATION OF EUTHANASIA
● ACTIVE EUTHANASIA: Active euthanasia refers to the killing of a person by any
active method. On the patient's request, it is carried out using a variety of techniques,
including the administration of medications and deadly injections.

● PASSIVE EUTHANASIA: Passive euthanasia is the deliberate death of a person by

refusing to use life-sustaining equipment or treatments, such as feeding tubes or
ventilators. This choice is typically made when the provided instruments do not enhance
a patient's health or guarantee a longer, higher-quality life.
When a patient actively desires euthanasia, this is referred to as voluntary euthanasia.
In this type, euthanasia is carried out with the consent of the patient. Some nations, like
Belgium, the Netherlands, etc., have legalised this practice.

● NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA: Non-voluntary euthanasia refers to a situation

in which the patient is unconscious and unable to express their consent. Infants with
illnesses, elderly persons, and adults who are seriously incapacitated are all included in
this category. If the patient is too ill to make decisions for themselves, another person
will make those decisions on their behalf. This person may be a family, a legal
representative, or another person on the grounds that the patient has expressed a desire
to end their life under these circumstances in advance.

5
Robert Jay Lifton, GERMAN DOCTORS AND THE FINAL SOLUTION, NEW YORK TIMES
MAGAZINE ( Sept. 21, 1986)

6
 ● VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA: Involuntary euthanasia occurs when a patient has the
ability to provide permission to death but chooses not to do so because they are either
not asked or because they are asked but need to live. If the patient is murdered
nevertheless, it is an involuntary euthanasia. Additionally, it is also marked as murder.

4. INTERNATIONAL SITUATION ON EUTHANASIA

In accordance with international humanitarian law, there is no "right to die." Any human rights
document's common interpretation does not imply the existence of a "right to a happy death."
Contrarily, nations are urged in human rights declarations to safeguard and preserve everyone's
life. Even though numerous legislative bodies have opted against it, the issue is still quite
contentious.6 Under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2006, "States
Parties should take all such steps as may be necessary to guarantee that individuals with
disabilities have the same right to the effective enjoyment of the right to life as other persons."
"Every human person has the intrinsic right to life", according to Article 6(1) of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR). No one's life may be
taken against their will. Every child "has the intrinsic right to life," according to Article 6(1)
of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Humans should be safeguarded from
inhuman or degrading treatment, according to Article 7 of the ICCPR.
In 2001, Netherland had legalised Euthanasia in their country.

The Netherland Parliament enacted the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted
Suicide (Review of Procedures) Act, 2001, which formalises a previous judicial decision to
relax the law against euthanasia and assisted suicide. The Act only permits euthanasia and
doctor-assisted suicide when a patient desires it and while under a doctor's care.7 On May 28,
2002, Belgium approved a law banning euthanasia. In accordance with Belgian legislation,
physicians were permitted to assist in the killing of terminally ill patients who expressed a
desire to die sooner. Only few circumstances and conditions specified by Belgian law allowed
euthanasia. The request must be made in writing by the patient. If the patient is unable to create
the paperwork themselves, they choose someone to do it for them. When a doctor confirms that
a patient has reached adulthood, is legally capable, aware of making requests, and makes

6
<https://adflegal.blob.core.windows.net/international-content/docs/-> (Last visited on Oct. 15,2022).
7
Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Torts 564-565((LexisNexis: Butterworth, 28th edn.2017)

7
requests while experiencing persistent, intolerable physical pain as a result of incurable
suffering brought on by sickness or accident, the doctor does not violate the law. There really
must not be a solution. If the patient is unable to make the request himself, he may name another
person to do it on his behalf. This person must be at least 18 years old and have no financial
stake in the patient's demise. Additionally, in situations when no one is able to make a request,
any competent person may draft advance instructions for doctors to follow while treating
unconscious patients who have an incurable illness or injury. 8 With the passage of the law on
March 16, 2009, Luxembourg became the third nation to legalise assisted suicide. Those who
are terminally sick will be permitted to terminate their lives with the agreement of two
physicians and a group of specialists.
In Canada, "physician assisted dying," sometimes known as voluntary active euthanasia, is
permitted for any adults over the age of 18 who have a terminal condition that has advanced to
the point where natural death is "reasonably foreseeable".
In China and Hong Kong, euthanasia is illegal. It goes against traditional Chinese moral
ideals. It is the equivalent of murder under Chinese law as it stands.
In the United Kingdom, assisted suicide is forbidden. Anyone caught helping someone commit
suicide is breaching the law; it is a statutory offence, punishable by up to 14 years in jail.
Active euthanasia is permitted in Germany, however passive euthanasia is not permitted. If a
doctor discontinues life-saving procedures at the patient's written request, it would not be
considered a crime. While active euthanasia is prohibited in the US. Only a small number of
States, including Oregon, Washington, and Montana, have approved physician assisted suicide
in some kind. Physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia have been distinguished from one
another. Only self-assisted suicide is legal in both Oregon and Washington. Outside of the legal
restrictions, aiding someone in suicide by a doctor or assisting someone in dying is still a crime.
In the US, a doctor can only turn off life support upon a patient's request. The doctor exclusively
considers the patient's desire to terminate his life when examining him.

5. EUTHANASIA IN INDIA

8
<https://associatie.kuleuven.be/p/flandershealthcare/tourofflanders/belgian-law-oneuthanasia.pdf>,
(last visited on Oct. 16, 2022).

8
In India, the debate over whether the phrase "right to life" encompasses the phrase "right to
die" dates back to 1987. In the State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Shripati Dubal case, the
Bombay High Court decided that everyone should have the freedom to end their life whenever
they see appropriate.9

Contrary to conflicting decisions made by other courts across India, the Andhra Pradesh High
Court determined in Chhena Jagadesswer v. State of Andhra Pradesh10 that an attempt to
commit suicide11is lawful and legitimate.

In the subsequent case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India12, the Supreme Court of India for the
first time raised fifteen questions and addressed the issue of "whether an Indian citizen
domiciled in India has a right to die." At the case's decision, it was determined that the word
"attempt to commit suicide" is an obsolete, inhumane, and unreasonable provision13 [25]. It
thus violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and is null and invalid.

In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab14 is a major judgement in the history of Euthanasia since it
overturned the ruling in P. Rathinam's case. The Supreme Court ruled that the "right to life"
does not contain the "right to die," and it further said that Article 21 does not permit shortening
a person's natural lifespan. It included offering a dignified existence up until death, including
a decent manner of passing away.

In Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India15, it was determined that suicide and euthanasia
are two distinct things. As a result, mercy killing is not the same as suicide, and S. 309 IPC

9
Dhruv Desai, Suicide and Euthanasia, Legal Service India <http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l265-
Suicide-&-Euthanasia.html> (last visited Oct 16, 2022)
10
Chhena Jagadesswer v State of Andhra Pradesh, 1988 Crl. L.J. 549.
11
Kusum R Gandhi, Euthanasia: A Brief History and Perspectives in India, 105 ResearchGate
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320829903_Euthanasia_A_Brief_History_and_Perspectives_in_Indi
a>, (Last visited Oct 16, 2022)
12
P. Rathinam v Union of India, 1994 SCC (3) 394
13
Dr. Sonali Abhang, A Socio-Legal Impact of ‘Euthanasia’ In India-Suggested Reform, 5, International
Organisation of Scientific Research <http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-
jhss/papers/Vol.%2022%20Issue9/Version-5/A2209050111.pdf>(Last visited Oct. 16, 2022)
14
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 (2) SCC 648
15
Dr. Shaikh Sahanwaz Islam, Indian Judicial Approach Regarding Right to Die, Legal Service India
<http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1846/Indian-Judicial-Approach-Regarding-Right-to-Die.html> (Last
visited Oct. 16, 2022)

9
does not apply to attempts at mercy killing. The two ideas are separate in actuality and in law.
Regardless of the conditions, euthanasia or mercy killing is still homicide.

In the case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug16, a person having an interest in the victim's
case filed a writ petition. When the victim was a nurse in a hospital 36 years ago, in 1973, a
staff member sexually assaulted her. She was unaware of anything since her brain was
unconscious. She spent her time in bed being looked after by hospital staff. The petitioner
argued that the victim's feeding should be terminated, and that the respondent should be
instructed to do so. The court refused to permit the discontinuation of life-saving procedures
and denial of nutrition after taking into account the medical report provided, from the victim.
Passive euthanasia is the act of discontinuing therapy with the goal of killing the victim. Passive
euthanasia also includes not allowing a coma patient to be fed. The court took into account
physicians' report and hoped for successful outcomes. The court ruled that legislation is the
only way to authorise and spread passive euthanasia throughout India.

The Supreme Court of India has determined the euthanasia in Common Cause Society v. Union
of India17 case. The petitioner, a registered organisation, stated that article 21 of the
Constitution should define the right to die with dignity to be a basic right. In order to guarantee
that people with deteriorating health or who are terminally ill should be allowed to sign a
document called "My Living Will and Attorney Authorization," which may be brought to a
hospital for appropriate action in the event that the executant is admitted to the hospital with a
serious disease, the petitioner asks the court to declare and issue direction to the respondent to
implement relevant procedures, in collaboration with state governments when considered
necessary. It is advised to establish a committee of experts, comprising medical professionals,
social scientists, and lawyers, to conduct study on the topic of establishing regulations for the
living will and to provide any further relevant instructions and rules that may be necessary 18.
According to the society, the right to live with dignity and the right to die with dignity go hand
in hand. It was suggested that in cases when a patient's health is declining and a treatment is
not feasible, every effort should be made to prolong the patient's life.

16
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 454
17
Common Cause Society v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1
18
Ibid

10
An individual has the right to choose whether to live or die. It was argued that article 21's
complex and integral right to a dignified death is inseparable from it. Since passive euthanasia
prolongs the patient's suffering from such irreversible conditions, it should be permitted.
situation in which he is experiencing excruciating discomfort. It provides the sufferer with
respite from such pain and trauma. Additionally endorsed were the ideas of a living will and
attorney authorization.

The patient should have the right to a pain-free, dignified death. Modern medical treatment and
cutting-edge technological equipment either confine or lengthen life but doing so causes the
patient immense suffering. The individual has the freedom to decide for themselves, including
the freedom to accept or reject. Where other options are accessible to him, he has the right to
select the course of treatment. He ought to be able to decide for himself. Where he is unable to
communicate his wishes because of his sickness, he should be granted the ability to
communicate his wishes in advance via a living will or a surrogate acting on his behalf. The
surrogate is anticipated to behave in the patient's best interest. The court determined that
everyone has the right to die with dignity.

6. EUTHANASIA IN CANADA

In Canada, euthanasia, also known as medicinally assisted dying, became legal alongside
assisted suicide in June 2016 to end the suffering of terminally ill people and put an end to their
excruciating torment. The Court issued its landmark decision, legalising physician-assisted
euthanasia as well as physician-assisted suicide in Canada. The court also altered Sections
241(b) and Section 14 of the Criminal Code, which prohibited assisted suicide, and came to
the conclusion that it is up to the person to choose whether to live or die with dignity.

In Cater v. Canada19, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that euthanasia should be legalised
in Canada since it did not infringe on the Charter's rights. In June 2016, the Parliament enacted
Bill C-14, which changed the Canadian Criminal Code to legalise physician assisted euthanasia
(PAE), physician assisted suicide (PAS), and the procedures used to carry them out in Canada.
This came after the judiciary legalised euthanasia. It also passed legislation to ensure that it
wasn't abused because it dealt with people's lives and deaths.

19
Cater vs. Canada , 2012 BCSC 886

11
Euthanasia and assisted suicide are not permissible for children, nor are they justified by
terminal disease or any other condition that may be remedied with time. It is only made
available to citizens who are eligible for Canadian medical services in order to prevent its
misuse in the nation. Individuals cannot ask for euthanasia in advance if their condition worsens
in the future (for instance, in cases of Alzheimer's disease when patients desire to die once they
reach an advanced stage of illness and suffering). Any official request for mercy killing is
prohibited.

The free choice to end one's life so that continued agony and suffering might stop and die in
peace and with dignity was one of the considerations that contributed to the legalisation of
euthanasia in Canada. The law governing assisted suicide in Canada includes legal safeguards
to prevent abuse and provide fully informed consent. Since mercy killing will only be
authorised by the patient, neither the law nor the professionals involved may legally intervene.
Even if it is one minute before death, assent must be transmitted more than once, must be
articulated, and cannot be taken to be inferred. There are no repercussions for withdrawing
consent, and there are no limitations on how many times it can be done.

In a landmark euthanasia decision20, a Canadian court grappled with the question of whether
the accused party was genuinely guilty for ending the patient's life or had behaved decently by
sparing her from unending anguish and suffering. In one instance, the father poisoned his
daughter with carbon monoxide to put an end to her suffering. According to her father, she was
being tortured and in excruciating pain. He did nothing wrong; it was in her best interest to
release herself from ongoing pain. After many trials and an appeal, the jury found him guilty
of first-degree murder, finding that he was responsible for the death of her own daughter and
was unable to invoke the defence of necessity.

Another significant case21 in which the section 241(b) of the law, which forbids a terminally
sick person from physician assisted suicide, was overturned on appeal. The court rejected the
claim by stating that lifting the ban would give weak people access to a weapon that would be
deadly to the community as a whole. The prosecution argued that the defendant should have

20
R vs. Latimer, 2001 SCC 1
21
Rodriguez vs. British Columbia, [1993] 3 SCR 519

12
the autonomy to choose when to pass away and the means by which it occurs. The court further
declared that permitting physician aided suicide will undermine confidence in mankind.

In Whitler v. Canada22, the Court reevaluated its earlier rulings and determined that preventing
physician aided suicide for those with impairments is unreasonable. They must endure the
consequences of this ban for the rest of their lives, which is a hardship and intolerable.

Canada's capital, Quebec, approved euthanasia in its city in 2009. They carefully considered
all sides before approving assisted suicide in the province. To guarantee that the people' right
to die is not abused, they revised the criminal code, added provisions defining it, and demanded
appropriate sanctions. The judiciary has also been crucial in determining how to interpret the
right to die so that it complies with established laws and rules.

The court concluded in Malette v. Shulman23 that a patient has the entire right to decline a
specific therapy, even in an emergency. The court ordered that the doctors must follow the
patient's written instructions, even if doing so proves to be hazardous to the patient's health.
The court highlighted that the right to die is based on the idea that the public's will comes first.

In Nancy B. v. Hotel - Dieu de Quebec24The court argued that the patient has the last say in
whether or not to continue the therapy. The notion that the patient's preferences must come first
when determining which treatment technique the patient has approved was reinforced by the
court once more. Additionally, it said that disease should run its course naturally and that the
doctor will not put up with outrageous behaviour.

The legislation approved in Canada has proper guidelines so that this power cannot be abused
and can only be utilised for the benefit of the patients. According to Canadian legislation,
terminally ill individuals must make a written request to the doctors outlining their want to pass
away with medical help. Patients should be able to attest that the doctor is doing euthanasia
without being forced or under any pressure. Additionally, he must make it apparent that he is
operating independently of anybody else and that none of his decisions have been influenced.
The written communication must be completed and given to the doctor at least 10 days

22
Withler vs. Canada, 2011 SCC 12
23
Malette vs. Shulman, 1990 CanLII 6868 (ON CA)
24
Nancy B. v. Hotel – Dieu de Quebec, 86 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (Que. S.C.)

13
beforehand. The patient's condition will then be examined by the doctor and two other medical
professionals, who will affirm that there is no other way to save the terminally sick patient and
that the patient's health is not expected to get better in the near future. The medical staff will
then advise the patient of all of his options and give him the chance to withdraw his permission
at any time, up to one minute before euthanasia is carried out.

7. COMPARISON BETWEEN INDIA AND CANADA LAWS AND

PROCEDURE ON EUTHANASIA :

Both India and Canada have allowed euthanasia, relieving the suffering of those who are
terminally ill. The major rationale behind legalising is to give people the freedom to make the
decisions that are best for them in their final moments. Here are the few comparison drawn
between Euthanasia in India and Canada.

The Indian Supreme Court approved passive euthanasia because it viewed the right to die as a
crucial component of the right to life 25. The court made a point of stating that active euthanasia
cannot now be approved legally under the terms of the country's constitution before issuing its
historic decision. They also made clear that the right would not be unrestricted and would be
subject to limitations. The Canadian Court, however, permitted both active and passive
euthanasia in Canada. They held the opinion that if a patient's condition is not likely to get
better in the future, it is pointless to subject them to unrelenting anguish and misery, and
therefore they supported the legalisation of physician-aided euthanasia and assisted suicide.

In India, the High Court is not required to grant euthanasia requests within a certain amount of
time. The court's rules are silent on the timeline for approving applications and the window of
opportunity within which the patient in question may receive euthanasia. On the other hand,
Canadian regulations have been extremely explicit about the deadlines for submitting
applications to doctors and the approval times. The 10-day time limit has been set up to make
sure the operation is carried out correctly by evaluating all of the other available alternatives
and to make sure the process is not carried out carelessly.

25
Supra note 16

14
The Apex Court of the nation said that the administration of euthanasia is too complicated and
time-consuming, which might be deadly for the terminally sick patient. The high court must
grant permission, which might cause the entire procedure to be delayed. The procedure is less
complicated in Canada since there, both the doctor in question and a medical specialist must
approve. As a result, the procedure is simple and doesn't require much time to complete.

Euthanasia has been legalised in Canada and India, but this is not enough; there still has to be
a suitable law in place, which is lacking in India. The Indian judiciary has taken the initiative
to legalise it, but the parliament has the authority to enact a bill and turn it into law. It is
exceedingly challenging for society to exercise its right to euthanasia since there is no adequate
law governing it. Since just giving out instructions does not result in a workable solution to any
problem, a law must be created for the benefit of society. However, in Canada, the situation is
different and well-organized since the Canadian parliament has enacted an appropriate bill (C-
14) to make it a law for the society's efficient operation.

The phrase "living will" refers to a medical directive established in advance by a person who
is in excellent health and in which they indicate what actions should be performed about their
health if they are unwell or unconscious and are in need of life-sustaining treatment. The Apex
Court in India has permitted access to such a paper or medical directive, allowing individuals
to be passively euthanized in the event that they develop a fatal disease in the future. In Canada,
however, both passive and active euthanasia have been legalised, therefore this is not the case.
Living wills are not permitted in this country since it has established appropriate legal
frameworks and provided adequate authority to implement the right to euthanasia.

8. CONCLUSION

The pious species of this cosmos is the human. He is this God's finest creation. The sacredness
of life ought to be upheld. A safe and healthy living must be provided by the government. But
life has also grown incredibly difficult in today's world.

15
People suffer from a variety of ailments. In every sector, scientific developments and methods
have increased. These developments have also impacted medical research and, eventually,
human lives. With the use of newly created medical treatments, people not only benefit from
saving their lives at various stages, but also from having their lives prolonged because they
have access to life-preserving treatments while the patient would have otherwise had to wait
their entire lives for natural death. Healthy living is the priceless jewellery of life.
With health, one may enjoy life. The ability to live a dignified life, which includes the freedom
to make decisions for oneself and to say "no," is a benefit to the individual. When a patient's
health is in such bad shape and he is in so much pain that there are no longer any chances for
him to recover or live, he should be allowed to refuse treatment. Alternatively, if he had
previously expressed his desire to do so and is no longer in a position to do so, his wish should
be taken into consideration. Occasionally, a patient may decide to undergo euthanasia because
of the conditions in his life. He should be examined and cared for by a psychiatrist in this case
to determine if he is depressed or not. Every human being deserves the right to die away with
dignity, whether they are healthy or afflicted with a deadly illness. The availability and
preservation of human rights are related to the problem. In order to be covered by Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution, the right to a dignified death must be protected from abuse. Passive
euthanasia should be performed on the patient with the necessary caution and care. Since India's
culture is undereducated and has a high crime rate, granting active euthanasia may not be
appropriate in the current climate, protecting the patient's security and best interests.

The Supreme Court has taken into account the underlying motivations of those who are
accountable for not taking active euthanasia into consideration. The Indian Supreme Court has
approved passive euthanasia and ordered the creation of legislation outlining its restrictions.
The top court also supported the creation of a commission to act as a watchdog over the
execution of mercy killings. The court's verdict is quite admirable; it shines like a beacon in
the darkness. The supreme court has prioritised the patient's suffering and his peaceful passing
away while permitting the same. The positive extension of the right to life under the purview
of Article 21 of the Constitution is to provide the right to die with dignity. Even while the
legalisation of passive euthanasia should be commended, it is the duty of the Parliament to
draught the relevant legislation and the rules for its best-implementation. It would aid in
clarifying the issue.

16
17
 CLS Project
by Abhijeet Singh

Submission date: 20-Oct-2022 09:33PM (UTC+0530)

Submission ID: 1930668445
File name: CLS_Project_WC.docx (95.82K)
Word count: 5211
Character count: 26756
16
3
21
4

8
6

2
 10

20

1
 6

1
 12

17

22
 1

13

14

19
 1

18

15

5
8
 3

1
 1

10 1

11
CLS Project
ORIGINALITY REPORT

11 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
10%
INTERNET SOURCES
2%
PUBLICATIONS
5%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
ili.ac.in
Internet Source 4%
2
advocatemmmohan.com
Internet Source 1%
3
Submitted to Symbiosis International
University
1%
Student Paper

4
archive.org
Internet Source 1%
5
en.wikipedia.org
Internet Source 1%
6
documents.parliament.qld.gov.au
Internet Source <1 %
7
Submitted to Symbiosis International School
Student Paper <1 %
8
wikimili.com
Internet Source <1 %
9
Submitted to University of Melbourne
Student Paper <1 %
10
Moeckli, Daniel, Shah, Sangeeta, Sivakumaran,
Sandesh. "International Human Rights Law",
<1 %
International Human Rights Law, 2022
Publication

11
Submitted to AURO University
Student Paper <1 %
12
www.lawjar.com
Internet Source <1 %
13
Submitted to NALSAR University of Law
Hyderabad
<1 %
Student Paper

14
Submitted to Alabama Christian Academ High
School
<1 %
Student Paper

15
www.casemine.com
Internet Source <1 %
16
www.assumptionjournal.au.edu
Internet Source <1 %
17
Submitted to Amity University
Student Paper <1 %
18
researchspace.ukzn.ac.za
Internet Source <1 %
19
griffithlawjournal.org
Internet Source <1 %
20
Bertrand G. Ramcharan. "A History of the UN
Human Rights Programme and Secretariat",
<1 %
Brill, 2020
Publication

21
ten Have, Henk, Welie, Jos. "EBOOK: Death
and Medical Power: An Ethical Analysis of
<1 %
Dutch Euthanasia Practice", EBOOK: Death
and Medical Power: An Ethical Analysis of
Dutch Euthanasia Practice, 2005
Publication

22
Submitted to Hidayatullah National Law
University, Raipur
<1 %
Student Paper

Exclude quotes On Exclude matches < 1 words

Exclude bibliography On
CLS Project
PAGE 1

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

PAGE 4

PAGE 5

PAGE 6

PAGE 7

PAGE 8

PAGE 9

PAGE 10

PAGE 11

PAGE 12

PAGE 13

PAGE 14

PAGE 15

PAGE 16

PAGE 17