“EUTHANASIA: Mercy Killing or Death with Dignity”

 

 

“Under Article 21” of the Indian Constitution- “No Person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedure establish by Law”, which means the State shall ensure good quality of life, livelihood, liberty and a dignified life.

 

The question as to whether the Right to Life includes the Right Not to Life or to Right to Die. Death can be defined as the Termination of life which means death which is caused
a) Naturally b) Unnaturally. Further, it can be caused by the action as well as the inaction of a person.

 

Causing the extinction of a life unnaturally by the action of oneself or someone else can be morally bad at the same time it is legally punishable.

 

WHAT IS EUTHANASIA-

Many a times life becomes very painful and unbearable so a man may wish death. This voluntary act of embracing death is known as Euthanasia or Mercy Killing or Dayamarana.

 

DID IT EXISTED IN ANCIENT TIMES

In Ancient India we find many types of voluntary death practices like Sati, Jauhars, Samadhi and Prayopaveshan (Starving to Death).

According to John Locke a philosopher who stated that person have the Right to their Life, Liberty and Property which if termed as Absolute Right to Life then they must be given the Right to decide to die or to end their life in case of a terminal illness.

“Naresh Marotrao Sakhre and Anrs. V/s. Union of India” the court observed the difference between Euthanasia and the suicide. Suicide was an act of self destruction to terminates one own life without the aid or assistance of any other human agency whereas euthanasia involves the intervention human agency to ends one’s life.

“Gian Kaur V/s. State of Punjab” where it was held that Right to Life does not include Right to Die or Right to be killed. It was upheld that Right to Life was natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide was unnatural termination for extinction of life and therefore incompatible and inconsistence with the concept of the Right to Life.

“In Common Cause V/s. Union of India” where 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court recognized and gave sanction to Passive Euthanasia and living will/ advance directives. The implication of this was Right to Die with dignity is now a fundamental right.

“In Aruna Shanbaug V/s. Union of India.”  In this case how was a nurse spending over 41 years in a vegetative state as a result of Sexual-Assault, the Supreme Court of India responded to the plea to Euthanasia wherein although the court rejected the petition but allowed Passive Euthanasia in India.

 

The Guidelines in the Passive Euthanasia is the decision to withdraw treatment, nutrition or water established that the decision to discontinue life support must be taken by Parents, Spouse or other Close Relative, or in the absence of them, by a “Next Friend”. The decision also requires court approval.

 

ACTIVE EUTHANASIA

Active Euthanasia is when a professional or another person intentionally causes a patient to die. For example, by injecting the patient by a lethal dose of a drug.

PASSIVE EUTHANASIA

Passive Euthanasia intentionally letting a patient die by withholding the artificial life support such as a ventilator or a feeding tube.

The prima-facie distinction between active and passive euthanasia is that the former involves killing a patient while the later involves letting a patient to die.

ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES OF EUTHANASIA

 

ADVANTAGE OF EUTHANASIA

1. It is a way to end an extremely miserable and painful life.

2. The Family member of the dying patient is relived of the physical, emotional, economical and mental stress.

3. The patients also have a right to refuse medical treatment.

4. It will free up medical fund of the state to help other poor and needy people.

5. It is the exercise of the fundamental right.

DISADVANTAGE OF EUTHANASIA

 1. Commercialization of euthanasia can take place.

2. The poor people can resort to this in order to avoid pecuniary difficulties of medication.

3. Old and destitute who are considered as burden on other people can make use of this to shelve their responsibilities.

4. It will de-value Human dignity and offend the Principal of sanctity of life.

 

CONCLUSION

 

For those who are facing terminal illness who are in irremediable pain and suffering, wish to exercise their right to die with dignity, a system of course should be available to them.

– MAMTA SINGH SHUKLA

(ADVOCATE DELHI HIGH COURT)

MOBILE – 9560044035

Email Id: adv.mamtasinghshukla@gmail.com