Legalising Euthanasia in India

Involuntary euthanasia occurs when the life of a person mentally incapable of making such life decisions or a request for death is interrupted; as a coma patient. In such cases, the patient does not leave a living will or give a living will, mainly because he or she did not have the opportunity to do so or did not foresee such an accident or eventuality. And on December 23, 2014, the Government of India approved and confirmed the Passive Euthanasia Act in a press release after stating in the Rajya Sabha the following: that the Honourable Supreme Court of India, in its judgment of 7.3.2011 [WP (Criminal) No. 115 of 2009] rejected the clemency objection in a particular case, established detailed guidelines for the treatment of passive euthanasia cases. After that, the issue of clemency was discussed in consultation with the Department of Law and Justice, and it was decided that, since the Honourable Supreme Court had already established the guidelines, they should be followed and treated as law in such cases. At present, there is no proposal to legislate on this issue, and the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding on everyone. Health Minister J. P. Nadda said so in a written response to the Rajya Sabha.

When it comes to passive euthanasia, there are two different factions. Canada only permitted assisted suicide and euthanasia in cases where it was reasonably foreseeable that an adult`s serious physical condition would ultimately result in death. Similarly, persons who are blinded by false beliefs of certain babas tantriks after causing an accident of the victim may consider permission to end the victim`s life without his consent as involuntary euthanasia; to offer it as a superstitious sacrifice. If euthanasia is legalized in India, it can be seriously abused by the part of Indian society that loves mischief. Some of the likely consequences are as follows. Here is an overview of the state of euthanasia in different countries: One of the important points raised in favour of legalizing euthanasia in India was presented to the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[v], was that the «right to life» provided for in the Indian Constitution also includes the «right to die». However, this request was rejected and the Supreme Court ruled that the «right to life» under section 21 did not include the «right to die». And it cannot be stretched to mean the same thing. Therefore, the Supreme Court of the country does not consider the illegality of euthanasia to be constitutionally invalid.

In passive euthanasia, the death of the victim is caused by the fact that the treatment necessary to preserve his life is either postponed or not given. In this case, either health care professionals do nothing necessary to keep the patient alive, or they stop giving the necessary treatment to keep the patient alive; such as powering off the life support system, disconnecting the power sensor, not performing life extension operations[ii], and other similar actions. In «passive euthanasia,» doctors do not actively kill anyone; They just don`t save him. [iii] In active euthanasia, the death of the victim is caused when health care professionals or another person intentionally perform positive action; such as injecting a dose of a deadly drug or overdosing on a drug that would not otherwise result in death without an overdose; which leads to the death of the person. The distinction between deprivation of life support and euthanasia/SAP is much clearer in many respects. Long-standing civil jurisprudence has long supported the right of patients to refuse unwanted treatment, even though such refusal of treatment may result in death. [8] On the other hand, patients did not have the opposite right to request the treatments or interventions they wanted. The consequence of this distinction has been that a life support patient has the possibility to end his life on request, but a patient who is not dependent on the maintenance of vital functions does not have this right.

Another study conducted in the Netherlands found that physical symptoms (62%), loss of function (33%), confidence (28%) or deterioration (15%) were often cited as reasons for euthanasia. No less than 35% of doctors said that there were alternatives to relieve the suffering of patients, which the majority refused. According to a Swedish study of doctors who had worked with dying adult patients, about half of them had discussed palliative care with all their dying patients, and more than half had heard their patients express a desire to die. About a third of doctors had administered painkillers or other drugs in such high quantities that some of their patients died earlier. A third had been invited to participate in active euthanasia, while 10% had been asked to assist in suicide. Active voluntary euthanasia remains illegal, although a caregiver may receive a reduced sentence if they take the life of a person who consents to it. In the Hindu tradition, death functions as a prefiguration and a model through which the bonds that bind man`s self or soul to cosmic impermanence can be completely broken and through which the ultimate goals of immortality and freedom can be definitively and definitively achieved. [44] Crawford[45] considers that «spiritual death» in the Indian context is synonymous with a «good death», that is, the individual must be in a state of calm and balance. Crawford[45] suggests that the concept of active euthanasia would not be unacceptable to the Indian psyche to ensure such a noble death. However, this view has been criticized by the authors[46] who claim that «spiritual death» or «iccha mrtu» can only be possible if the evolved soul decides to leave the body at will. It is also claimed that the developing soul cannot be equated with mental stillness because it is at a higher level of consciousness.

Although less dogmatic than other religions, Hindus traditionally remain skeptical in their view of euthanasia. It has been suggested that a strong objection to euthanasia may stem from the Indian concept of Ahimsa. But even within the framework of Gandhi of Ahimsa, inevitable violence is not considered a sin. [46] This underlines the flexibility of the Indian spirit. Therefore, the Indian mind, although a little skeptical, would not consider the idea of euthanasia and PAS sacrilege. One of the controversial issues in the recent past has been the question of legalizing the right to die or euthanasia. The «right to life» includes the right to live in human dignity, which would mean the existence of such a right until the end of natural life, which includes the right of a dying person to die with dignity. But the «right to die with dignity» should not be confused with the «right to die,» an unnatural death that limits the natural lifespan. Therefore, the concept of the right to life is at the heart of the euthanasia debate.

Euthanasia is controversial because it involves the deliberate end of human life. Patients with incurable diseases often face great pain as the disease gradually worsens until it kills them, and it can be so scary for them that they prefer to end their lives rather than suffer it. The question therefore remains whether people should be helped to commit suicide, or whether they should be left to the pain caused by incurable diseases. The answer came to some extent from the landmark decision in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, in which the decision clarifies that passive euthanasia «is only permitted in cases where the person is in a persistent or terminal vegetative state.» In Aruna Shanbaug`s «Right to Die» case, the Supreme Court made an important statement about the suicide attempt. He noted that a person who commits suicide needs more help than punishment and called on Parliament to consider decriminalizing suicide attempts. This would result in the deletion of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court`s decision in the Aruna Shanbaug case seems to have sanctioned in a broad spectrum passive euthanasia of terminally ill patients in certain circumstances, which is reaffirmed in a broader perspective after even 7 years in the Common Cause case, by recognizing the living will and the right to a fundamental right to a dignified death as a fundamental right in accordance with the right to life, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The two landmark judgments on the legalization of passive euthanasia mixed assessments with ethical and legal challenges related to the case of Nikhil Soni «Santhara» and paved the way for medico-legal challenges in the field of the right to health, palliative care, organ transplantation, etc. The court recognized «passive euthanasia,» in which the doctor does not cause the person`s death, but simply does not save them by stopping ongoing treatment or disabling life-sustaining devices that help keep the patient alive. «active euthanasia», which results from the administration and injection of a dose of a lethal drug; The overdose of such a drug or drug, which would otherwise not be fatal, but to increase the dose, in the victim`s body, was immediately recognized by Indian courts. Through active euthanasia, a person leads to the death of the patient directly and deliberately. In passive euthanasia, the patient`s life is not directly taken away; Instead, they are left to die.