Discussions about human rights, healthcare, and ethics are increasingly focused on the topic of the right to die with dignity. As medical science advances, people are living longer, but not always with a good quality of life. It’s possible that some people with incurable diseases or excruciating agony could get to a point when living is worse than dying. This has sparked discussions about whether individuals should have the legal and moral right to choose death as a means of ending their pain. The idea emphasises respect for individual decisions, compassion, and independence in the final stages of life. The right to die with dignity implies that a person should have the freedom to decide on a tranquil and dignified conclusion to their life, particularly in the face of a terminal illness or ongoing, excruciating pain. It enables people to prevent unnecessary medical treatments that could merely prolong pain and lead to a loss of control. This right is consistent with the notion that death can be a respectable and individual choice if it is made freely and with informed consent. It ensures that people are treated with compassion and respect in their final moments, rather than being forced to endure pain against their will. In essence, it is about giving people control over their own lives, even at the end.
ARTICLE 21 AND THE RIGHT TO DIE
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the “Right to Life” as a basic right, stipulates that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”. While this fundamental right primarily focuses on the preservation of life, it has also been interpreted by the judiciary to include the right to live with dignity. But the issue remains as to whether this right includes the right to die or the right to end one’s life. If a patient is terminal and approaching death, the issue of whether he has the right to end his own life has been extensively debated. In such a situation, death is unavoidable and imminent. Since the process of natural death has already started and life is gradually fading, allowing life to end would lessen the period of suffering. In “physician-assisted suicide,” the patient takes the drugs under a doctor’s supervision, but in euthanasia, the medication is given by a doctor or other third party. Article 21 does not address active euthanasia; the only way to legalize it is via legislation. Active euthanasia is prohibited, whereas passive euthanasia is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The courts have jurisdiction over this issue because of the very essence of Article 21, which grants the right to a dignified death. Only the court can render a judgment on behalf of the parents patriae. In P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 394, the Supreme Court held that the “right to not live a forced life” is included under Article 21. In the same vein, in the case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 648, the right to life was defined as including the right to die, but it was also made clear that this does not give a person the right to end their life intentionally by unnatural methods.
EUTHANASIA
Euthanasia: As long as the patient and their family consent, the law permits a physician to terminate a person’s life using a painless procedure.
- Active euthanasia occurs when a person uses lethal substances or force to end a life, whether by the individual or someone else. It is more controversial and tends to provoke religious, moral, ethical, and compassionate debates.
- Passive euthanasia involves withholding life-sustaining treatments. The definitions are not always clear. For example, if a doctor prescribes increasing doses of powerful painkillers like opioids, this could become toxic for the patient. Some argue that this is passive euthanasia, while others believe it is not, because there is no intention to take life.
In addition to above categories, euthanasia is further divided into these categories:
- Voluntary euthanasia – “Voluntary euthanasia” refers to the deliberate decision to take one’s own life when a patient is experiencing unbearable pain as a result of a medically acknowledged terminal illness.
- Non-Voluntary Euthanasia – Non-voluntary euthanasia falls under the category of “voluntary euthanasia.” Non-Voluntary Euthanasia is defined as when a terminally ill patient is unable to voice their desire and must rely on someone else to submit a proxy request for the termination of their life.
- Involuntary euthanasia occurs when a patient with a terminal illness experiences excruciating pain for an extended time and the patient has not made a clear decision, whether consciously or unconsciously. Due to the patient’s incapacity, there may be a lack of consent, such as if the patient is in a coma or prolonged sleep.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST LEGALIZATION
- Arguments in favour of legalisation:
According to proponents, people have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, and terminally ill patients should have the option of ending their suffering with dignity.
- Arguments against legalisation:
Concerns have been raised by opponents regarding the possibility of abuse, the sacredness of life, and the possible consequences for those who are at risk.
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
• The Case of the State of Sanjay Kumar Bhatia (1994)
In this case, the Delhi High Court criticised Section 309 of the IPC, which criminalises attempted suicide, as “anachronistic” and a “paradox.” The court recognised the distressing nature of a suicide attempt and called for a more humane approach, but it did not provide a conclusive ruling on euthanasia.
• Union of India vs. Common Cause (2018)
The 2018 judgment by the Supreme Court was a pivotal moment for the right to die in India. A five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Dipak Mishra, unanimously recognised the “right to die with dignity” as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also legalized passive euthanasia and permitted the creation of a “living will” or an advance directive, allowing terminally ill patients to express their wishes regarding end-of-life decisions. This judgment has been seen as a major step in the legal recognition of euthanasia in India.
CONCLUSION
Although advances in medicine can lengthen life, they cannot always alleviate suffering. The right to die with dignity should be given careful consideration when the pain gets unbearable, and it should be backed by solid ethical principles and stringent rules to avoid abuse.
Stephen Hawking, a physicist, once said, “I believe those who suffer from a terminal illness and experience great pain should have the right to choose to end their own life, and those who assist them should be free from prosecution.” This demonstrates a kind and compassionate attitude to one of the most significant moral issues of our day.
CONTRIBUTED BY- SHIKHA