RIGHT TO LIFE VS.

RIGHT TO DIE

LEGAL METHOS 1.1

ACADEMIC YEAR 2020-2021

BA. LLB. (HONS.)
SEMESTER: I

Submitted by:
Shrida Supunya
Email id: shridasupunya@nlunagpur.ac.in
UID: UG21-108

Submitted to:
Dr. Himanshu Pandey
(Professor of Law)

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to thank my vice chancellor Dr. Prof. Vijender
Kumar who gave me the opportunity to be a part of the university and this
learning process. I extend my gratefulness to my professor, Dr. Himanshu
Pandey, who gave me this golden chance to do this project on the topic - ‘Right to
Life vs. Right to Die’, guided me through this project and gave me his valuable
advice which contributed a lot in the successful completion of this project.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends, without whose support and
guidance at any level, I wouldn’t have been successful in completing this project.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...............................................................................................2

TABLE OF CONTENTS.........................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM...............................................................................................6

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY............................................................................................6

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND QUESTIONS.................................................................6

LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................................7

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................7

RIGHT TO LIFE.....................................................................................................................8

EVOLUTION OF RIGHT TO LIFE IN INDIA...................................................................9

WHAT IS EUTHANASIA?...................................................................................................11

DIFFERENT FORMS OF EUTHANSIA............................................................................12

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE RIGHT TO DIE...........................................13

LEGAL POSITION OF RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA.........................................................14

CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................16

3
 INTRODUCTION

“This body is decaying! A nest of disease, a heap of corruption, bound to

destruction, to dissolution. All life ends in death. Look at these grey-white dried
bones, like dried empty gourds thrown away at the end of the summer. Who will
feel joy in looking at them?”

- Dhammapada 148

The Constitution of India, 1950 ("the Constitution") is a "transformative" document in which

articles aimed at "sparking and shaping social and economic revolutions within India" coexist
with provisions "embodying level-headed practicality and administrative detail." Parts III and
IV of the Constitution – the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy,
respectively – serve as the Constitution's conscience, allowing for both "massive socio -
economic transformation" and the preservation of individual liberties at the same time. A
long list of fundamental rights can be found in Part III of the constitution. This section of
India's constitution has been labelled the "Magna Carta" of the country. The goal of having a
declaration of fundamental rights is that certain basic rights, such as the right to life, liberty,
freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, should be considered sacrosanct under all
circumstances, and that the country's changing majority in the legislature shouldn’t have the
authority to infringe on these fundamental rights.

Article 21 of the Indian constitution guarantees one of the most important fundamental rights
to every person, citizen and foreigners alike, which says, "no person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law". It secures two
rights - "Right to life" and "Right to Personal Liberty". The Supreme Court of India describes
it as the "heart of fundamental rights". The right expressly states that nobody's life or liberty
may be taken away except in accordance with legal procedures. This suggests that this right is
exclusively available against the state i.e., the government, the government departments, the
local bodies, the Legislatures, etc.

This is the only article in the Constitution that has been given the broadest interpretation
possible. A vast number of rights have found refuge under the protection of Article 21 -
"Right to privacy, right to go abroad, right to shelter, right against solitary confinement, right
to social justice and economic empowerment, right against handcuffing, right against

4
custodial death, right against delayed execution, Doctors’ assistance, right against public
hanging, Protection of cultural heritage, right to pollution-free water and air, right of every
child to a full development, right to health and medical aid, right to education and Protection
of under-trials." Thus, the core concept of right to life are the basic requirements that are
essential and inevitable for a person.

As far as Right to die is concerned, section 309 of the IPC makes attempted suicide a criminal
offence, punishable with imprisonment or fine, or both. The notion of the Right to Die is
based on the belief that a person with free will must have the choice to terminate their life or
to undertake voluntary euthanasia. Carl. E. Wasmuth defines euthanasia as the practice of
ending life in order to give release from incurable suffering. The term can refer to suicide or
to the act of ending another person's life. It is also used more broadly to cover the painless
killing of an individual whose life has either ceased to be agreeable or been deemed no longer
useful. The Supreme Court had ruled that a person should have the right to live with dignity,
but not the right to die, based on a variety of interpretations. In Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab1
(1996), the apex court upheld, “the right to life” doesn't include “right to be killed” or the
“right to die”. Although, the Court allowed passive euthanasia in the case Aruna
Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India2. Euthanasia is a widely contested topic in today's
society but it is not a new notion. Nonetheless, it is one of the most important societal issues
of the time and is a very complicated and contentious topic with several different viewpoints
and theoretical approaches.

1
1996 SCC (2) 648
2
2011 SCC (4) 454

5
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
This research paper will discuss Euthanasia as a topic of increasing importance and
controversy, as health concerns and rights of people are well recognised in today's rapidly
changing world, and discussions are held about it. It will examine India's position with Right
to die as a nation, compare it to other countries' approaches, and offer recommendations on
how this as a Fundamental Right can be made more comprehensive. It will also consider
various other statutes, such as Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which renders suicide
attempt punishable, as well as the role of the judiciary in upholding such legal provisions and
the reasons for these judgments.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 To understand what is Right to life.
 To understand the definition of euthanasia (right to die).
 To consider both - for and against arguments - right to die.
 To analyse the legal positions in regards with the topic.
 To conclude whether right to die should be a part of right to life or not!

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND QUESTIONS

Research Hypothesis:

It is hypothesised "Right to Die" is a part of "Right to Life" and that the fundamental right of
Right to Life in India should be made more comprehensive.

Research Questions:

 Can Right to Die be made a part of Right to Life?

 What reforms are needed to make Right to Life more comprehensive?

6
LITERATURE REVIEW

Shodhganga: "Shodhganga" is the name coined to denote digital repository of Indian

Electronic Theses and Dissertations which was set-up by the INFLIBNET Centre. The word
"Shodh" comes from Sanskrit and means "research" or "discovery". In the Indian
subcontinent, the "Ganga" is the holiest, largest, and longest river and is the ever-changing,
ever-flowing, ever-loved and revered symbol of India's age-old culture and civilisation,
which has held India's heart captive and drawn uncounted millions to her banks since the
beginning of time.

JSTOR: JSTOR is a digital library based in New York City that was founded in 1995.
Originally, it contained digitalised back issues of academic journals but now it encompasses
books and other primary sources as well as current issues of journals in the humanities and
social sciences. It allows you to search the full text of nearly 2,000 journals.

Google Scholar: Google Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly
literature. You can search across many disciplines and sources: articles, theses, books,
abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online
repositories, universities and other web sites. It helps you find relevant work across the world
of scholarly research and helps keep up with recent research in any area.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The approach taken in this project is explanatory and analytical. It is based largely on article
analysis, and references have been made using secondary data such as websites and articles.
The researcher used the doctrinal research method and consulted books, official websites of
international bodies, scholarly articles, and research materials. This project is a doctrinal
method research because it is based on books, articles, and journals that were available
online. The topics that have been mentioned in this project are the study of different sources,
primarily online.

7
RIGHT TO LIFE
Right to life constitutes an essential part of our life. The concept of the right to life is based
on the idea that everybody should be entitled to the basic necessities for survival as well as to
live a dignified life. Due to the general current economic situation that our country is in, we
need to have these rights in today's day and age. There is a need to ensure that every citizen
has the right to life and that these rights are implemented properly. The right to life
essentially means that everyone has the right to breathe and live as per their choice, and that
no one, including the government, can take that right away from them. Article 21 of the
Indian constitution protects this right to life and personal liberty, and it also ensures that these
rights are upheld by Article 32, which is regarded as the heart and soul of our constitution,
and allows any citizen to file a writ in the event of a breach of that right. All other rights add
value to this one and are dependent on the existence of life itself to function. Because human
rights can only be attached to living beings, one could anticipate the right to life to be
primary, because without it, neither of the rights would have any value or functionality.

The Supreme Court has given a broad interpretation to the term "life" as defined in Article 21
of the Constitution. The right to life does not simply refer to the continuation of a person's
animal existence, but also to the quality of that existence. In the case of Kharak Singh v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held, “By the term “life” is meant something more than
mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and
faculties by which life is enjoyed”.1

The expanded scope of Article 21 was described further in the case of Unni Krishnan v. State
of Andhra Pradesh. In this case, the court gave the list of the rights that are covered under
Article 21. Some of them are given below:

 Right to privacy
 Right to go abroad
 Right to shelter
 Right against solitary confinement
 Right to social justice and economic empowerment
 Right against handcuffing
 Right against custodial death
 Right against delayed execution

8
  Doctors’ assistance
 Right against public hanging
 Protection of cultural heritage
 Right to pollution-free water and air
 Right of every child to a full development
 Right to health and medical aid
 Right to education
 Protection of under-trials

EVOLUTION OF RIGHT TO LIFE IN INDIA

With the support of Article 21, the Supreme Court attempted to evolve the notion of Right to
Life through diverse interpretations and dynamic modifications in order to give the citizens of
our nation with what they are rightfully entitled to. I will cite some of the examples below:

 The right to life was construed and expanded to encompass the right to livelihood in the
case Olga Tellis vs. Municipal Corporation of Bombay3, which found that the right to
livelihood is a critical and integral aspect of the right to life because nobody can exist
without the means of survival.
 In Chameli Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh 4, the court stated that the right to shelter is
adequately included as a fundamental right, as we can infer from the right to residence
contained in Article 19(1)(e) and the right to life in Article 21.
 In the case of PUCL v. Association of India5, the Supreme Court held that the right to
protection is a part of the right to "life" and "individual freedom" revered under Article
21 of the Constitution, which introduced a new realm for interpretations about the
citizens’ right to privacy.
 In the MC Mehta case6, the supreme court upheld that the right to get pollution free
water and air and a clean environment as to be very important rights.

3
1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51
4
1995 SCR Supp (6) 827
5
JT 1997 SC (1) 288
6
1987 SCR (1) 819

9
  The right to free legal aid was given under the M.H Hoskot v. Territory of Maharashtra
case7 in which it was held that it was not government’s cause but it’s obligation to
provide a free legitimate guide to the detainee in case he/ she is not financially well off
or couldn’t find a legitimate guide.
 The Supreme court also guaranteed right against sexual exploitation at workplace
holding that assault is a wrongdoing against fundamental human rights and is likewise
violative of the right to life given under article 21. For the same, Vishakha guidelines
were laid down.
 In K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India8 (2017), the right to privacy was declared a
fundamental right and an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under the
article 21 of the constitution.
 The right to education was held a fundamental right by the Supreme Court in its
landmark judgement in the Unnikrishnan JP vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
case9. After that, Tapas Majumdar committee was set and by the 86 th constitutional
amendment act in 2002, right to education was incorporated as a fundamental right
under article 21A.

In the current scenario, the notion of “Right to Die” has emerged according to which
everyone should have a freedom to die just like freedom to live, according to their own will.
This notion has surfaced due to new and changed scenario of advancements in medical
science and technology, which can keep alive someone who would have been dead by that
time. Every invention comes with its boons and banes; the boon of the medical advancement
is that it can increase the average life span of a human being and the boon is that stretches the
patient's sufferings and trauma, who are alive only because of a prolonged life support system
intervention.

7
1979 SCR (1) 192
8
2017 SCC (1) 10
9
1993 SCR (1) 594

10
WHAT IS EUTHANASIA?

Euthanasia has come from Greek words ‘eu’ and ‘thanatos’ which means "good death".
Euthanasia, sometimes known as "mercy killing", is the act or practise of putting to death
people who are suffering from a terrible and incurable sickness or a physically debilitating
disorder without suffering, or permitting them to die without treatment or artificial life-
support equipment. Euthanasia is used as a last choice for those who are gravely ill or have
become incapacitated as a result of their condition, with the goal of ending their lives gently
and humanely. As a result, the purpose of euthanasia is to alleviate the pain of a patient who
has been suffering from a terminal illness or has no prospects of recovery and to let that
patient, who is enduring an undignified life due to his or her mental or physical condition,
have not only a dignified life but also a dignified death.

The history of euthanasia dates back to Socrates and Plato. Plato was one of the greatest
philosophers of all time and in his opinion, committing suicide was wrong and against the
will of gods. He even suggested that the graves of the suicide committers should be unmarked
and solitary graves in deserted areas. He believed in harmony with life and was against active
euthanasia. According to him, committing a suicide was “a spirit of slothful and abject
cowardice”.2 He was against active euthanasia but nor against passive euthanasia and rather
recognized the sufferings of the terminally ill patients and even stated that these people
should not treatment to elongate their life span and thus, their suffering. Even the other great
philosophers like Aristotle and Hippocrates were against active euthanasia.

In Buddhism also, most of the believers don’t promote or accept euthanasia, especially
involuntary euthanasia. Buddhists believe that death is whole cycle, if someone has died,
he/she will be reborn as something else somewhere else and that new birth is according to
their “karma” i.e., actions of the past which determine the future’s state of existence. Thus,
they think that all the suffering which people go throughout their lives and even just before
that is because of “karma” only and that ending their life voluntarily also might not end that
pain and agony because that karma will get transferred to their next life also. They approve of
suicide/ euthanasia only in a case when the person has achieved enlightenment. Even the few
Buddhists, who feel that euthanasia is a compassionate and kind deed, are inclined to accept
only voluntary or passive euthanasia because otherwise it may result in negative karmic
ramifications for both the dying patient and the person who administers and won’t qualify as
a "good death".

11
DIFFERENT FORMS OF EUTHANSIA
Euthanasia has several different forms and ways of administering it. They are as follows -:

 Active Euthanasia: In active euthanasia, the patient is intentionally or directly killed by

a person by doing some act like giving an over-dose of some drugs. They might not be
‘actively killing’ the patient but while administering that act, they know that it will
result onto the death of that patient and thus is considered one of the most immoral
forms of euthanasia.
 Passive euthanasia: In passive euthanasia, the life of the patients is terminated by
withdrawing or withholding the treatment that is being given to the patient like
switching off the ventilator machine. This is an indirect way of taking away someone’s
life. This is traditionally thought of as being less immoral than active euthanasia and is
even legal in India and UK.
 Voluntary Euthanasia: In voluntary euthanasia, the patient himself wants to die and
explicitly gives the consent for the same. A few examples could be not taking
medicines, refusing the treatment, stop eating food, etc.
 Involuntary Euthanasia: In involuntary euthanasia, the person wants to live but is
killed anyway. It is usually a murder but can also be a case where the person’s death is
for his/her own good, example, a soldier who is great pain but still wants to survive even
though the doctor knows that he might die in a day or two at maximum and thus ends
his life to relieve him from that suffering.
 Non-voluntary Euthanasia: In non-voluntary euthanasia, occurs when the choice
between living or dying is not taken by them but by someone else because of their
incapability due to any reason – very young age, low intelligence, vegetative state, etc.
 Indirect Euthanasia: In indirect euthanasia, treatment is given disguised as treatment
for reducing pain but in reality, it is for speeding up the patient’s death. Its justification
is called “the doctrine of double affect”.
 Assisted suicide: In assisted suicide, a person deliberately assists someone who wants
to commit suicide, for instance, providing the sufferer with death speeding drugs.

12
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE RIGHT TO DIE

 OPPONENTS’ ARGUMENTS-:
 Opponents of euthanasia claim that if we embrace "the right to die with dignity,"
those with terminal and debilitating illnesses will be thrown out of our civilised
society. The practise of hospice contradicts this viewpoint, as it provides relief from
painful symptoms and discomfort, while also supporting both, the patient and the
caregiver.
 State's responsibility is to safeguard life and a physician's responsibility is to offer
care while avoiding harming patients. There is a serious risk that the government may
cease to invest in health care (towards Right to life) if euthanasia is legalised, like
what happened in Holland, where after the legalisation of euthanasia the quality of
care for terminally ill patients fell down significantly.
 Keeping in mind the lowering morality in today’s age, there is a possibility of
malafide intention of the family members or relatives also who might misuse
euthanasia in the name of mercy killing and will try to falsely inherit the property and
money.
 There should be more emphasis on palliative care. The doctors sometimes suggest
the family of the patient to discharge him/her from the hospital if they prefer to die at
home but the people should understand that it is the duty of the medical professional
to take care and telling the patient that he still has a chance instead of telling him/her
that there’s nothing that he/she can do now to save them would increase chances of
survival. Due to this, maybe the patient won’t even want euthanasia anymore.
 Legalisation of euthanasia might also lead to commercialization of health care
because there are many poor families which can’t afford the huge amount that comes
with the treatment of such severely ill patients and thus give consent to terminate
his/her life ultimately. This might lead to commercialization and the hospitals will
declare so many death sentences like this.

 PROPONETS’ ARGUMENTS-:
 Euthanasia is an act of ending the long-term suffering of a patient by ending his/her
life. So, it will be better not only for the individual but also for the society if his/her is
ended because firstly, it is a merciful act of relieving the pain of the patient; and

13
 secondly, in a country like India, where there are limited resources only, it will be
better to spend those resources on someone who needs as well as wants them instead
of on who is unwilling and is being forced to use them.
 It is a human right to have a right live that with dignity and as per self-determination,
and is even guaranteed under article 21 of the Indian constitution. Thus, it should not
be forced on a person and should be his/her choice to end his/her life if it is a not a
dignified one.
 They also argue that it will be out of severe suffering only when a person will want to
end his/her life and why would anyone not prefer a painless death over a life full of
pain and agony.
 According to medical ethics, the treatment should not be imposed on patient and it’s
his/her choice to take or reject a treatment. If the treatment is being imposed on the
patients, then it is an intrusion with their right to privacy. Moreover, there is another
guiding principle which says that the treatment should be for the betterment of the
patient but in this case, it will only contribute to their sufferings.
 Each individual is entitled to a dignified existence. Is a person living a dignified life
if he is bedridden or in a chronic vegetative state, living a life as good as a vegetable,
or if he is suffering from an incurable ailment, or if he is in great agony and misery
with little hope of survival? Is it true that a person's right to life obligates them to live
a life that really isn't dignified?

All these are a few objections raised by proponents of euthanasia.

LEGAL POSITION OF RIGHT TO DIE IN INDIA

Euthanasia is legalised in many countries like Netherlands, Belgium, Columbia and
Luxembourg. In the US and UK, people are allowed to refuse the treatment or other kind of
health care which basically is voluntary euthanasia. In Canada physician assisted suicide is
legal and not only that, in some provinces it is a punishable offence if you don’t participate in
the same.

In regards with the legal position of right to India, the law is pretty clear on the matter of
assisted suicide and it’s considered as aiding suicide which is punishable under sections 305

14
and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. After the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of
India in the case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab 10, it has been established that the right to
life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution does not include the right to die.
The 'right to life' guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution has been contested in the
Indian courts on various occasions and it has been argued that right to life cannot be imposed
on people forcefully. Various interpretations have been formed by different Courts, ranging
from Maruti Shripati Dubbal vs. State of Maharashtra11 to Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab.

“A historic case regarding right to life and die in India is the Aruna Shanbaug case. The case
was filed by a social activist Pinki Virani on behalf of Aruna Shanbaug, who was a patient
with a terminal illness and was in a vegetative state for the past 37 years in a hospital in
Mumbai. The petition was to remove that artificial support on which Aruna was for the past
so many years. When the Supreme Court sought the opinion from that hospital the staff
declined to withdraw that artificial support and thus Pinki’s request was also declined by the
court but the court issued a study on passive euthanasia and guidelines for the termination of
life until this study is completed and the government forms rules and laws pertaining to the
same. It was also the first time when the court acknowledged the right to refuse to take the
treatment or withhold it. The “Common cause vs. Union of India” was another landmark
decision, with the court recognising the "right to a dignified death" as a fundamental right
under Article 21 and laying out regulations for the legalisation of "Living Wills" and
"Advanced Medical Directives".

In the 210th report of the Law Commission of India named “Humanization and
Decriminalisation of attempt to suicide”, it was argued that the person who commits suicide
shouldn't be punished but instead should be counselled because he or she is a with victim.
Further, it recommended that section 309 of the IPC should be decriminalised because the
mental health experts said that people who attempt suicide are going through a lot already
and at that time, they should be given therapy instead of punishment.

The supreme court's five-judge constitutional bench proclaimed on March 9, 2018 that it is a
ruling granting for the first time in India the legal recognition of "Advanced Medical
Directives" or "Living Wills." The decision was produced on a PIL filed by Delhi-based non-
governmental organisation, Common Cause, in 2005, making a plea for an individual ’s right
to make a living will document for passive euthanasia. It refers to a patient's decision to

10
1996 SCC (2) 648
11
1987 (1) BomCR 499

15
withdraw life-saving treatment that has been disclosed in advance and should be accepted by
treating doctors and hospitals. This was a very significant judgement in the history of right to
die in India because it legalizes passive euthanasia thereby bringing in the notion of “right to
die” within the fundamental right of “right to life” guaranteed in the article 21 of the
constitution. This judgement of the supreme court has laid down a detailed protocol with
explanation for advance medical directives on the part of a person implying and expressing
his assent in written form made in relation to the conditions wherein withholding or
withdrawal of medical assistance can be used. The court has elaborated the following:

 Who can execute the Advance directive and how?

 What should it contain?
 How should it be recorded and prescribed?
 When and by whom can it be given effect?
 What if permission is refused by medical board?
 Revocation or inapplicability of Advance Directive?

The judgement of March 2018 is not an ideal one because it fails to distinguish between
passive and active euthanasia at the 1st place. Moreover, a close examination of the
aforementioned tenets reveals that the approach proposed is time-consuming, tiresome, and
difficult to follow. Nevertheless, it is a good start if not a perfect to at least address a highly
debated topic which was never broached before.

CONCLUSION

“I’m not afraid of being dead. I’m just afraid of what you might have to go
through to get there.”
– Pamela Bone

The question of whether there should be a right or die is a very emotive and sensitive one
because it involves death and touches every human. It causes a lot of frustrations and disputes
as apparent through the never-ending debates that are going on in reference to it. There are
discrepancies around the topic of its legalization and it can be expected that the morality and
sensitivity around the subject will continue to be a social and legal challenge.

16
In my opinion, it is a right thing to legalize euthanasia though in restricted manner because of
the high moralities attached to it. The individual's right to exercise their right to life according
to their own will should not be obligated, especially in severe circumstances, where he/she is
in a vegetative state with almost nil chances of recovery. A medical and social investigation
should be allowed in such cases. A person who, for good reason, does not wish to live should
not be made to suffer as a result of refusing euthanasia and his/her elongated life is no longer
an advantage but rather a burden and punishment for him/her if he/she is critically ill or
dying. You only try to put yourself in such a person’s shoes who is in this condition and
knows that the illness is incurable; imagine all the suffering and emotional and physical pain
he/she must be going through. Isn’t it just cruel and brutal on our part to keep someone who
is facing such agony, alive? When right to life includes right to live with dignity then what
kind of a dignity are we giving to such a person by just adding on his/her pain and distress?
Why are we increasing their trauma and tormenting them? There are definitely many medical
advancements now but we should realise that some diseases are just incurable; and it’s the
doctor’s responsibility to save his/her patients from intolerable anguish.

Even though there is a law in India regarding passive euthanasia, there is still a need to make
it more comprehensive than any that has been proposed thus far is desirable: one that allows
for active and passive euthanasia, as well as voluntary and non-voluntary (but not
involuntary) euthanasia; one that addresses a wide range of needs while ensure ample
security measures in each case. A comprehensive euthanasia law that combines the best
characteristics of those measures submitted to date, as well as relevant standards as necessary
in the present time.

I will like to conclude this research with a poem which expresses the voice a terminally ill

patient:

A Last Wish
All the beauty of my life is now in vain,
Day by day I feel more and more pain,
Now I reach terminally ill stage,
No hope of life remains.
I am thinking today again,
Man has success to reach on space
Birth Control is legally safe,

17
 Abortion is also legal if the child's life critical
If government is helpless to give me treatment
Then I feeling life is senseless
So why legislation don't make a good law on euthanasia
If I cannot “live with dignity”
Then I want to “die with dignity”
There should be a law on euthanasia
It is only my last wish
And now everything is finish.

- A Hopeless Sufferer

REFERENCES

18
1. Behuniak, S. M. (2011). Death with “dignity”: The wedge that divides the disability rights
movement from the right to die movement. Politics and the Life Sciences, 30(1), 17–32.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41417941

2. Kass, L. R. (1993). Is There a Right to Die? The Hastings Center Report, 23(1), 34–43.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3562279

3. Singh, S. C. (2012). EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE: REVISITING THE

SANCTITY OF LIFE PRINCIPLE. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 54(2), 196–231.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/43953537

4. Feinberg, J. (1978). Voluntary Euthanasia and the Inalienable Right to Life. Philosophy &
Public Affairs, 7(2), 93–123. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2264987

5. Patel, Vrushti S. (2015). quotRight to Life and Freedom To Die A Study of Juridical
Responses to Euthanasia in the Idiom of Human Rights Thesisquot. Inflibnet.ac.in.
https://doi.org/http://hdl.handle.net/10603/326520

6. Sareen, R. (2019). India Decides on Euthanasia: Is the Debate Over? Health Care : Current
Reviews, 07(03). https://doi.org/10.35248/2375-4273.19.07.245

7. Roy, Caesar. (2011). POSITION OF EUTHANASIA IN INDIA - AN ANALYTICAL

STUDY. The Indian Journal of Criminology and Criminalistics. XXXII. 37.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259485727_POSITION_OF_EUTHANASIA_I
N_INDIA_-_AN_ANALYTICAL_STUDY

8. legal Service India. (2011). Euthanasia in India. Legalservicesindia.com.

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/787/Euthanasia-in-India.html

9. ‌Bansal Ritika, Euthanasia. (2013) Appeal and Plea for Mercy Killing, (Universal Law/
Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.) New Delhi, 2013, ISBN 978-93-5035-316-5

10. Iyer, K. (2011, March 9). Krishna Iyer proposed legalisation of euthanasia. Deccan
Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/content/144412/krishna-iyer-proposed-
legalisation-euthanasia.html

11. Gustafson, D. H. (2007). A Good Death. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 9(1), e6.
https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9.1.e6

19
12. Euthanasia suicide mercy-killing right-to-die physician assisted suicide living wills
research. (2021). Euthanasia.com. http://www.euthanasia.com/

20