Euthanasia
Fundamental Rights are necessary for leading a dignified and fulfilling life. Probably the most important Fundamental Right in the Indian Constitution is the Right to Life under Article 21. It provides for the protection of life and personal liberty. It states: no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. However, the question to end one’s life needs to be answered. Under Article 21 many rights are covered such as the right to legal aid, right to clean environment, etc. An important question raised in many cases is whether ‘right to die’ is included in Article 21. For the answer to this question, it is important to know about the concept of euthanasia.
Types
There are two types of euthanasia or mercy killing:
- Active involuntarily euthanasia
- Passive voluntary euthanasia.
Inactive euthanasia, the lethal substance is used to kill a person. In layman’s terms, active euthanasia is an act/omission is done to end the patient’s life. For eg. lethal injection given to a person with terminal cancer who is in terrible agony. In passive euthanasia, treatment is withheld or in simple language, an act is not done to preserve the patient’s life.
To be able to adjudicate upon the aforementioned issues, the court explained as to what is euthanasia. Euthanasia or mercy killing is of two types: active and passive. Active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances or forces to kill a person. For instance, a person with terminal cancer who is in terrible agony, the doctors give a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia entails withholding of medical treatment for the continuance of life. For example, withholding of antibiotics where without giving it a patient is likely to die. Also, removing the heart-lung machine, from a patient in a coma.
Case Laws
In the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shahbaug vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court changed the perspective of the laws related to euthanasia. Facts of the case state that a sweeper attacked Aruna, a nurse of KEM Hospital in the hospital. He tied her neck with a dog chain and strangled her on 27th November 1973. He also tried to rape her but she was menstruating so he sodomized her. Due to the insufficient supply of oxygen to the brain, she became paralyzed. Thus, she got wholly dependent upon the staff of the KEM hospital. The sweeper got imprisonment for six years and was out of jail in 1980. But Aruna’s life was vulnerable to the extent of not being able to do basic human chores.
Also Read: Conflict between Medical Laws and Ethics
Pinki Virani, a close friend of Aruna filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32. She claimed the termination of Aruna’s life. She based her petition on the permanent vegetative state of Aruna. The Court studied the medical history of Aruna. The court was of the opinion that she was not brain dead. She reacts to the situation in her own way. Moreover, the doctors at the KEM hospital was also willing to take care of Aruna. So, they opined that euthanasia should not be provided in the present case.
In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Mauty Shripati Dubal, the Bombay High Court held that the ‘right to life’ also includes ‘right to die’. Also, in the case, the court struck down Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Crux
As per medical ethics, the person should be fully aware of the treatment and side effects. He should also be aware of all the alternative courses of treatment. But the question of informed consent comes when the patient is able to understand the consequences of her treatment. Else-wise he/she has earlier when in sound conditions made a declaration.
In the case of Aruna, she was not in the condition to give consent. Therefore, the question was raised as to who will give the consent on her behalf. The courts decide this question on the concept of ‘acting in the patient’s best interest’. Acting in the patient’s best interest means following a course of action that is best for the patient. It should not be influenced by personal convictions, motives, or other considerations. The courts should consider the public interest and the interests of the state.