Ground Realities of Passive Euthanasia in India

Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance, GS4/ Ethics

Context

• The debate around the ethics and law that defines passive euthanasia was reignited after the Supreme Court dismissed the plea in Harish Rana’s case, who has been in a permanent vegetative state since 2013.

Status of Euthanasia in India

• In 2011, the Supreme Court for the first time recognised the legality of passive euthanasia in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union of India.
• In 2018, the Supreme Court recognised the legality of ‘passive euthanasia’ for terminally-ill patients, holding that the ‘right to die with dignity’ forms a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• The court also laid down detailed guidelines for passive euthanasia, both in cases where the patient left an ‘advance directive’ or a ‘living will’ stating that life support should be withdrawn if they fall terminally ill, and in cases where no such directive was left behind.
• Among the guidelines was the condition that the living will must be signed in the presence of two witnesses and signed by a Judicial Magistrate. 
• In the case of patients without a living will, the family has to give their consent for withdrawal of life support.
  • The court further eased norms for this process in January 2023.

Arguments in Favour of Euthanasia

• End of Pain: 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.
• Respecting Person’s Choice: 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.
• Treatment for others: In many developing and underdeveloped countries like India, there is a lack of funds. There is a 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. 
• Dignified Death: 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. 
• Addressing Mental Agony: The motive behind this is to help rather than harm. It not only relieves the unbearable pain of a patient but also relieves the relatives of a patient from the mental agony.

Ethical Challenges

• Medical Ethics: Medical ethics call for nursing, caregiving and healing and not ending the life of the patient.
  • In the present time, medical science is advancing at a great pace making even the most incurable diseases curable today.
• Moral Wrong: Taking a life is morally and ethically wrong. The value of life can never be undermined.

Concluding remarks

• Euthanasia challenges traditional views on death and medicine. Public discourse that considers religious, ethical, and cultural perspectives is crucial.
• Also there is a need for strict guidelines and safeguards are needed to prevent abuse or coercion.
• Ensuring access to quality palliative care, which focuses on comfort and symptom relief, should be a priority alongside any discussion of euthanasia. 

Sources: IE