ABSTRACT
The right to die with dignity overlaps with the realms of law, morality, sociology, and even human rights. This work tackles the concept of death with dignity, its relevance, and its place in legal systems and ethics.
KEYWORDS
Right to die, Dignity, Euthanasia, Legal perspectives, Ethical perspectives.
INTRODUCTION
‘Right to die with dignity’ argues that an individual should not be forced to live when he/she has a terminal illness/other such medical conditions. It also raises the issues of self-regarding boundaries, related feelings of self-imposed suffering, and medical ethics. Different countries have different laws regarding euthanasia & assisted dying which can be regarded as conditional and others which outright irrefutably ban the act. In India, the right support grew louder with the Supreme Court’s decisions that clearly reaffirmed legal protection for passive euthanasia in some situations, which in effect call for natural and respectful care even in the terminal course of life. This article searches for two principal areas related to the right to die with dignity: death with dignity: Ethical and legal aspects. Although the debate on the right to die with dignity is an extremely liberal one, it is equally contentious owing to ethics, autonomy, and the law.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATION
The idea of the right to die with dignity concerns the issue of free choice, care for the patient, and medical ethics. Supporters of the right to die argue that individuals should be free to choose how and when they wish to suffer and that if the cause of the suffering arises from an old age illness that cannot be cured then that choice should be respected. Ethically, it is wrong to inflict suffering on a patient when there is no possibility of recovery.
Opponents of euthanasia argue that it is an attack on the sanctity of human life. Some even suggest that the elderly or the disabled could be subjected to such practices and that it would be mere societal pressure compelling them to do so. This opposition is primarily grounded in moral considerations or religion as a belief that all life is sacred and that only a natural death is morally permissible.
LEGAL PERSPECTIVES
The legal framework of the right to die with dignity is subjective, with every country having its own position based on the traditions, customs, and morality of the people. In India, the Supreme Court examined this issue in two specific cases Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India (2011) and Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (2018). In the former case, the Court provided for the passive form of euthanasia which was a significant leap towards lawful recognition of the right to die. Later in 2018 the Court also reiterated that passive euthanasia is legal and further recognized the use of advance directives known as ‘living wills’ which are documents endorsing a person’s desire for the withdrawal of treatment in the case of terminal illness.
These provisions of law seem to indicate a more advanced version of the right to die with dignity. Individual autonomy is acknowledged and considered with a level of protection against the possibility of being misused. Active euthanasia is where a doctor or a medical practitioner administers a procedure causing the patient’s life to end, is still prohibited in India depicting the ambivalence the Indian judiciary is trying to maintain.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- IPC & Decriminalization of suicide
Earlier, suicide attempts were considered to be punishable under section 309 of Indian Penal Code, but after the enactment of Mental Healthcare Act,2017, section 309 was nullified as in the cases linked to mental illness.
- Supreme Court guidelines on passive euthanasia (2011)
In the landmark judgement of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug V. UOI & Ors. The SC legalized passive euthanasia and concluded the right to die to be a derivative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
LANDMARK JUDGEMENT
- Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. UOI
In this case the Supreme Court opined that passive euthanasia can be allowed in exceptional and rarest of rare cases with the due approval from patient’s family members and doctors.
- Common cause v. UOI (2018)
The Court in this case highlighted the difference between different types of euthanasia, primarily active and passive euthanasia. It is stated that where active euthanasia necessitates an overt action to terminate the life of the individual, while passive euthanasia involves the act of removing life support to end the suffering of the individual. It concluded that the Court’s decision in Aruna Shanbaug to rule that passive euthanasia could only be legalized through legislation was incorrect.
CONCLUSION
The right to die with dignity involves the interesting stakeholders of individual autonomy on the one hand and protection of the most vulnerable segments on the other hand. In India, the fact that passive euthanasia has been legalized and advance directives are recognized can be viewed as progressive steps in support of the right to die with dignity as it empowers the person to some extent with regards to their last moments. Nevertheless, the complete prohibition of active euthanasia and the restrictions imposed for passive euthanasia demonstrate the principles that the Indian legal framework has taken to avoid any scope for abuse. Since societal norms and even the practice of medicine is subject to changes, this issue of the right to die with dignity is indeed going to be active topic for debates.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: D.V. DEEKSHA.
References:
- iPLeaders- Decriminalized crime in India
- Hindsutan times
- Markkula Centre for Applied Ethics
