Introduction:-
Life and death are the two facets of life, where life depicts the beginning and death depicts the ending. Death possibly intends to keep away from negatives that try to attack the virtue and vigor of life from any arena.
In spite of all the statements whether its philosophical or physiological, people love to live, no one dreams of death and more than a truth, people treat death as a fear.
But sometimes there comes a phase when a mere existence does not amount to presence, a person reaches to semi-reality state in which he/ she does not aware of anything that is happening around him/ her. The idea of identity and quality of life is lost. The sanctity of life is destroyed and such destruction is a denial of living.
Now the question arises, whether a person should be allowed to remain in the incurable pain in the name of “Humanity and morality”. The emerging progress in medical technology, treatment has come into existence that helps the person to get rid of such incurable pain by smoothing the process of dying. But the treatment cannot be provided with such ease as there is another perspective in relation to morality, social value and family mindset as any family would make every possible effort to save its member. The societal pressure would also affect the decision of the family and there would be a dilemma whether to give them permission to go through the treatment or not.
Legal Approach:-
In the matter of Common cause v. Union of India & Anr, a writ petition has been filed in the Honorable Supreme Court, Under article 32 Of the Constitution Of India.
A registered society approached the court to declare “Right to die dignity” under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. After observing the matter a five-judge bench of The Hon’ble Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice Of India Dipak Misra and Comprising Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, passed an order allowing “Passive euthanasia” the matter the court allowed the “Passive euthanasia” and issued guidelines in recognition of “living will” made by terminally-ill patients.
Difference between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia:-
Euthanasia is basically an intentional premature termination of another person‘s life. There are two types of Euthanasia:-
a. Active euthanasia
b. Passive euthanasia
Active Euthanasia: – direct intervention. Active Euthanasia also is known as – positive euthanasia or aggressive euthanasia. Direct intervention, means:-to cause the intentional death of a person by:-
a. Use of lethal substances or
b. giving an overdose of painkillers or
c. lethal injection.
Passive Euthanasia: – By withholding life or by withholding life-prolonging measures and resources. Passive Euthanasia- also known as ― negative euthanasia or ― non-aggressive euthanasia.
It entails:
a. Firstly, withdrawing of life support measures or withholding of medical treatment for continuance of life.
b. Secondly, withholding of antibiotics in case of a patient,
c. Lastly, removing of the heart-lung machine from a patient in coma
In other words, stopping any medical support to save a person’s life.
Conclusion:-
Hence, the need of the society changes the rules and regulations and helps to legislate the laws. Moreover, The Judiciary is within the pillars of democracy. Further, the courts keep principles of Natural Justice and the good of society in mind while passing the judgments.