Legal, Religious and Moral aspects of SUICIDE

 

THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY MONIKA BHAKTA A STUDENT OF LLOYD LAW COLLEGE, GR. NOIDA.

Abstract:

 “Did you really want to die? No one commits suicide because they want to die. Then why do they do it? Because they want to stop the pain.” – Tiffanie DeBartolo

The proverbial word’ Suicide’ is comprehended in a various aspects by diversified and dignified authors, scholars, jurists and many others in their own respective ideas and believes. Suicide is nothing but an ‘End of human life’. The word suicide is nowadays in the lime light because of the emerging rates of suicide in India. These issues of suicide generated and heated worldwide on the earth where some of the people are in support but the other one are not in the support of the issue. Does man’s free moral agency allow him to do anything even to include willful taking away of his own life? Do suicide is the only option left with the person who faces an uneven danger in life which is beyond his control? Or a person must also see the positive sides of the coin to fight for the justice and live longer? The word suicide envisages varied questions. The main idea behind this research is to consider the pros and cons of the suicide and see to the main motive of one’s religious, moral and legal aspect of the suicide. These and more are the concern of this paper which in conclusion negates Suicide.

ARTICLE:-

1. Introduction:

“Almost everyone would agree that life is most precious gift that human beings have been given.”

Yet despite this, there are times when people’s lives become so difficult and unbearable when they think they would have died and would have never born. Form some these feelings continues and when it continues, the only option which is left to them is Suicide which is the only escape from the reality.

The proverbial word’ Suicide’ is comprehended in a various aspects by diversified and dignified authors, scholars, jurists and many others in their own respective ideas and believes. Suicide is nothing but an ‘End of human life’.

In the every age of the world in the history of the almost every country, there are instances more or less numerous of men and women, who preferring the dim uncertainty of the future to the painful realities of the present, have sought relief from all their troubles by suddenly terminating their own existence.

Misery and pain have been the lot of human race ever since the dawn of the history, and these causes have from the earliest times induced persons to destroy themselves , and  even fear of the eternal punishment has not sufficed to deter them.

Sorrow, suffering and mental diseases are practically the only causes of the Modern suicide; but in the ancient world, suicide from these causes were either much more rare than they are at the present time, or else were passed over an unworthy of record, in the presence of the suicide of a more honorable nature. Hundred of instances have been come down under which death has been self sought and inflicted from the idea or conviction that such self destruction was to be of obvious advantage to the state or to the sufferer’s family; or again, the fatal act was frequently committed as a point of honor to obviate the disgrace and ignominy of falling into the hands of the conqueror; or, again, to avoid pollution and shame at the hands of unscrupulous and debased tyrants.

It cannot be denied that the influence of religion has caused thousands to make a voluntary sacrifice of their lives, as offerings to their deities; and thousands more have voluntarily courted death to prove the sincerity of their faith.

Nothing is practically gained by calling suicide a crime; no one about to slay himself to be rid of the brain-distracting trouble will be restrained by the thought that his proposed action is criminal; in some cases self destruction is contemptible and cowardly; in some it is venial; in some cases death is distinctly the lesser evil, in few it has been honorable and as such should escape all condemnation, and merit the approval of men of development and refinement.

Nothing but the increase of the education will suffice to prevent those suicides which are prompted by immoral thoughts and feelings; as to the venial ones, such those who anticipate the hour of release from the tortures of disease.

According to the Webster Dictionary of English law (1988:420), Suicide is, “taking of one’s own life; ruin brought by one’s own actions.”

Bonhoeffer defines[1] suicide as “the ultimate and extreme self justification of man as man, and it is therefore from the purely human stand point, in certain sense even the self accomplished expiation for a life that has failed”.

 

2. Different aspects of suicide:

Under the Indian Constitution we are provided a long list of fundamental rights under part- III Article 21 by virtue of whose jurisdiction the most prominent right is “Protection of life and personal liberty” that has no derogation from it is permitted even in the time when the country is suffering from emergency.[2] It is therefore howsoever equally true and important right to life may be it is the death which is the end of the process. Therefore one cannot ignore this very fact. Now the question which arises is ‘Does the right to life include the right to die’? If the death is an integral part of life, should the individual’s decision to die, its time and manner, be protected from state intrusion? This question is still unsettled despite a long term debate and discussion on this issue, going on at the judicial and extra judicial review regime.

The Law Commission of India reports[3] have also paid their attention taking into account the national and international laws and practices and taking into consideration, the increasing demand of the society have given their recommendation on this issue. In its 196th Report the Law Commission of India is in favor of permitting right to die or passive euthanasia in a limited number of cases under the strict supervision of panel of experts with a well-established procedure.

Therefore with the advancement of the modern society there also arises favor in permitting right to die and euthanasia in a rare rest of rare cases. So that we can also see the light and importance being given to the Right to Die in certain cases as prescribed under the jurisdiction of the Article 21 in its wider sense. With the presentation of this paper we are here to look into the Moral, Legal and Religious aspects of the Suicide emerging in the present scenario.

 

2.1Legal Validity of the Suicide:

As per the jurisdiction under the prominent Indian Constitution a numerous rights being provided with a reasonable restrictions in order to guarantee, if any violation being done by virtue of the fundamental rights. Under the Constitution of India, provided,

Under Article 21 which read as follows: “No person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”

 

According to this Article, Right to life means the right to lead meaningful complete and dignified life. It does not have restricted meaning. The main object and idea behind guarantying Article 21 is to prevent any restriction by the State to a person upon his personal liberty and deprivation of life except according to procedure established by law.

The meaning of the words “personal liberty” came up for the first time under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court firstly under well known case i.e. A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India[4] the scope of the Article 21 was a bit narrow at that time. In such case the Supreme Court held that the word deprivation was construed in a narrow sense and it was held that deprivation does not restrict upon the right to move freely which came under Article 19 (1) (d).

Finally, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[5] the Supreme Court has overruled Gopalan’s case and widens the scope of the words “personal liberty”, which is as follows:

“The expression personal liberty in Article 21 is of widest in nature and it covers a bundle of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have risen to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19”

• Constitutional validity of the Right to Die:

If a person has Right to live Article 21 of the constitution, the question is whether he has a right not to live included in that. Well logically, it may follow that right to live also include right not to live. While considering the right to life it can also construed in itself that right not to love forceful life. If a person because of family discord, distraction, loss of a dear relation or other cause of a like nature overcomes the instincts of self perseverance decides to take his life, he should not be held liable for attempt to suicide. In such a case the unfortunate man deserves indulgence, sympathy, and consolation instead of punishment.[6]

In India Attempt to commit suicide is punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the establishment of the Section 309 of the I.P.C. which read as:

“Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.”

 

• Table of cases inferred:

The above section has been subject of controversy in many cases, especially over the last two decades. The question arises whether right to life under Article 21 includes right to die or not. This question came for consideration for first time before the High Court of Bombay in State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Sripati Dubal.[7] In this case the Bombay High Court held that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes right to die, and the hon’ble High Court struck down section 309 IPC which provides punishment for attempt to commit suicide by a person as unconstitutional. The judges felt that the desire to die is not unnatural but merely abnormal and uncommon. They listed several circumstances in which people may wish to end their lives, including disease, cruel or unbearable conditions of life, and a sense of shame or disenchantment with life. They held that everyone should have freedom to dispose of his life and when he desires. In this case a Bombay Police Constable who was mentally deranged was refused permission to set up a shop and earn a living. Out of frustration he tried to set himself afire in the corporation’s office room.

On the other hand the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chenna Jagadeswar v. State of A.P.[8], held that the right to die is not the fundamental right within the meaning of the Article 21 and hence section 309, I.P.C. is not unconstitutional.

 In P Rathinam v. Union of India[9] a Division Bench of the Supreme Court supporting the decision of the High Court of Bombay in. Maruti Sripati Dubal case held that under Article 21 right to life also include right to die and laid down that section 309 of Indian Penal Court which deals with ‘attempt to commit suicide is a penal offence’ unconstitutional. The “right to live” in article 21 of the constitution includes “the right not to live”, i.e. right to die or to terminate one’s life. The court held that section 309 was violative of article 21 and hence it is void. A person cannot be forced to enjoy right to life to his detriment, disadvantage or disliking. The court held that section 309 of the I.P.C. was “ a cruel and irrational provision”.

This issue again raised before the court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[10]. In this case a five judge Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court overruled the P. Ratinam’s case and held that “Right to Life” under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include “Right to die” or “Right to be killed” and there is no ground to hold that the section 309, IPC is constitutionally invalid. The true meaning of the word ‘life’ in Article 21 means life with human dignity. Any aspect of life which makes life dignified may be include in it but not that which extinguishes it. The ‘Right to Die’ if any, is inherently inconsistent with the “Right to Life” as is “death” with “Life”.

While considering the arguments which are held in both of the above cases it concluded that under article 21 which constitutes right to life with human dignity does not include right not to live.

The Indian constitution under Article 21 confers the right to Life as the fundamental right of every citizen. The Right to Life enriched in Article 21 has been liberally interpreted so as to mean something more than mere survival and mere animal existence. The Supreme Court has asserted that Article 21 is the heart of the fundamental Rights provided under part III of the constitution.[11]

While considering the importance and constitutionality of the “Right to die” it is very much needed to widen the scope of the Right to die. Because laws are made for the people and it should be change to meet the aims and need of the society at large. Our Legislation id duty bound to walk with the society. A democratic country like India, which is the government of the People it must look into the needs and aims of the people with the emergence of the modern society.

“Right to live would, however, mean right to live with human dignity up to the end of natural life. Thus, right to live would include right to die with dignity at the end of life and it should not be equated with right to die an unnatural death curtailing natural span of life.

Ultimately, the aim should be to evolve a consensual and conceptual model effectively handling the evils without sacrificing human rights. Section 309 should be deleted from the Indian Penal Code as it doesn’t meet the present needs of the human beings. No deterrence is going to hold back those who want to die for a special cause or political cause or to leave the world either because of the loss of interest in the life or for self deliverance. Thus in cause does the punishment serve the purpose and in some other cases it is bound to prove self defeating and counterproductive. In any case a person should not be forced to enjoy the right to live to his detriment, disadvantage, and disliking. Further, the Right to life under article 21 should not include the Right to die because this provisions might increase the rates of suicide in the country and moreover, Right to life is a natural right embodied in the article 21 of the Indian constitution but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of the “right to life”. Instead of criminalizing people who attempt to commit the suicide under section 309 IPC, they should be provided with the societal and state support and be offered counseling and other help depending upon their cause of attempt to suicide. [12]

AccordingtotheJ.S.Mills,
“Mill expresses his view on freedom by illustrating how an individual’s drive to better their station, and for self-improvement, is the sole source of true freedom. Only when an individual is able to attain such improvements, without impeding others in their own efforts to do the same, can true freedom prevails”. He by his words explains the concept of the freedom of man to do what he wishes to, even if it includes the right not to live.

• Euthanasia : Generally, the word euthanasia is defined as the act or practice of painlessly putting to death or withdrawing treatment from a person suffering an incurable diseases.

Hon’ble Supreme Court has also expressed similar view in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India & Ors.[13] An act of suicide cannot be said to be against religion. Morality or public policy, and an act of attempted suicide have no baneful effect on society. Further, suicide or attempt to commit suicide causes no harm to others; therefore the state’s interference with the personal liberty of the concerned persons is not called for. Thus section 309 violates Article 21, and so void.

• Why, if at all, is it morally unacceptable for me to bring about my own death?

 

2.2.1 Moral aspects of the Suicide: The term “moral” took its root from the Latin word “moralis” perhaps in the same manner ethics took from the Greek word “ethos” both moral and ethics refer to “custom or way of life”.

Therefore from the light of the above said statement what actually morals are ‘the principles of right and wrong behavior’. The question which arises here is whether willfully taking away one’s own life is morally justified? Are we allowed to bring our own death? In order to ascertain the moral aspect we need to first consider the definition i.e. what are morals? One is said to be moral if his actions conform to the acceptable standard of behavior. Himmeifarb[14] lend credence to this when he observes, “morality refers to free decision and the values upon which it is based and not to the resulting act in itself. The moral life has to do with the very core of personal existence and not with the externals and observable of existence”. Similarly morality[15] as that which has to do neither with the overt act itself nor even necessarily with values consciously subscribed to in making decision but with the actual, often deeply hidden, motives which determine choices.

2.2.2 Kant views on suicide: The ‘intention to kill oneself’ constitutes suicide. Therefore while considering the views of  Kant suicide is termed as an intention to kill oneself which is against the orders of the almighty God and also he forbids one who do so because it is a wrong morally to take away one’s own life.

Taking in view the moral aspects of the suicide it is not permissible to take away one’s own life just because of self love and when future bad more than good. But then principles of self love, whose end is to preserve one’s life, becomes the spring for one’s death. Therefore the person who commits suicide acts on the basis of the maxim destroys his life by his free will, which is itself destroyed in the process.

Morally, He who’s prepared to commit suicide has no respect for his life; hence he has no respect for the life of others and is not deterred by the fear of punishment. We have a duty towards ourselves because the humanity in us inviolable. Human nature has an intrinsic value which is negated by suicide, which involves treating oneself as if one were a thing. Therefore he who harms himself harms others too which includes his family member in the society.

 

But while considering the brief aspects of the suicide morality has no define boundary and it would be too hazardous to make bold and bad statement that commissions of the suicide is per se an immoral act.

“If the purpose of the prescribed punishment is to prevent the prospective suicides by deterrence, it is difficult to understand how the same can be achieved by punishing those who have made the attempts. Those who make the suicide attempt on account of mental disorder requires psychiatric treatment and not confinement in the prison cells where their condition is bound to be worsen leading to further mental derangement. Those on the other hand, who makes a suicide attempt on account of actual physical ailments, incurable disease, torture (broken down by illness), and deceit physical state induced by old age or disablement, need nursing home and not prison to prevent them from making the attempts again. No deterrence is going to hold back those who want to die for a special or political cause or to leave the world either because of the loss of interest in life or for self- deliverance. Thus in no case does the punishment serve the purpose and in some cases it is bound to prove self-defeating and counterproductive”[16]

The state’s power under section 309, IPC to punish a man for attempt to commit a suicide is questioned not only on the grounds of morality, but also on the constitutionality of the said provision. A lot of conflicting opinions have been given on desirability of retaining or abolishing section 309 of Indian Penal Code because of some contrasting judgment given by various courts.

A question may arise, in case of a dying man, who is, seriously ill or has been suffering from virulent and incurable form of disease he may be permitted to terminate it by a premature extinction of his life in those circumstances. This category of cases may fall within the ambit of ‘Right to Die’ with dignity as a part of life with dignity. According to the court these are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating the process of natural death which has already commenced. In as much as the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur specifically stated that Euthanasia[17] and Assisted Suicide[18] are not lawful, it is obvious that so far as Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide are concerned, they will fall within one or other of penal provisions and continue to be unlawful thus the court did not proposed going to Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

In Gian Kaur the Supreme Court had declared it to be the duty of the doctor to keep his patient alive as long as possible even in case of terminal illness (except in case of persistent vegetative state) even if the patient and/or his family members request him to stop the treatment. Under common law[19] a patient has to give his consent (informed consent) to medical treatment, including invasive treatment. When the patient is competent and wants withholding or withdrawal of treatment, that decision is also binding on the doctors provided the doctor is satisfied that the patient is competent and that this decision of the patient is an informed one then the doctor can ignore the patient’s decision and decide what is in the best interests of the patient according to the view of a body of medical experts. There is, however, too much confusion and uncertainty in respect of criminal liability of the doctor in cases of passive euthanasia[20]. In this section ‘suicide’ has not been separately defined but generally means ‘a deliberate termination of one’s own physical existence’.

So for the applicability of Section 309 as this issue is concerned, the Law Commission of India[21] has given opinion that once a competent patient decides not to take medicines and allows the nature to take its own course, the doctor has to obey the instructions of the patients, since this omission of this doctor is based on the patients direction, therefore, it is not an offence under Section 306 of IPC.

On the basis of above discussion it can be inferred that since the withholding or withdrawal of life supporting equipment (which amounts to euthanasia) has been permitted by the Court in cases where a patient is in persistent vegetative state[22], doing so is neither illegal criminal in India.

Therefore by virtue of the above aspects put forth related to the moral aspects of the suicide it is very much necessary to look into the actual need and desire of the patient there are chances when a person is not by his desire but by the unbearable pain need to curb his life and die. As per our morals, it is necessary to do well and behave well even in the toughest of situations but it is nowhere define that when arises a threat to life and there is no better escape than to die than it will nowhere amount to immoral. And therefore a man is free to take away his life for his own better cause.

• Religious Aspects of the Suicide:

In words of Bible, ‘Suicide is a grievous sin that seriously hurts both the heart of God, and those who loved the deceased. The pain of losing a loved one who took their own life is not easily healed, and often isn’t fully healed until Heaven.’ It is directly counter to the power of life that God has put so strongly into His creation. Everywhere we look we see life growing, even in the most hostile environments. This “survival instinct” is a gift from God. In fact, if He didn’t bestow this gift upon His creation there probably wouldn’t be any life on this planet at all! Suicide, then, is directly contrary to the will of God, and originated in the realm of the demonic host, who come only to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy”[23].

It prominent to not here that suicide was regarded as permissible in some extent or circumstances in Ancient India. According to the Hindu Vedantic philosophy, death is not the end of the life. It is only the sthula sharira (physical body), that dies. It is the Shukshma sarira (the astral body), that does not perish with the death of the body. The past karmas (thoughts and deeds) remain on the ‘shukshma sarira’ or astral body, and are retained even after death and goes to bhuvarloka. The astral body then disintegrates and the components are merged in the ocean of energy with the eternal Parma Brahma (the supreme creator). Thereafter, they return by the will of god to another physical body and the individual is reborn on this earth in accordance with that person’s deeds and karmas births and deaths. We all are droplets or lumps of or only parts of the great ocean of energy. When the body becomes unfit to live, the droplet of energy leaves the body and enters to another body. This is called “transmigration of the soul”. It is a continuance process.[24]

The Lord Krishna says, “Just as a person casts off worn out garments and put on others that are new, even so does the embodied soul cast off worn out bodies and take on others that are new”.[25]

According to the Vedantic Philosophy Param Brahma created human body. God is the material cause and instrumentality of all the joys, happiness, woes, sorrows, deeds and karamas of humanity. Just as he gave life to us, he takes it away from us as well. He is the creator as well as doer and destroyer of this body. [26] Commitment of Suicide is considered as an offence under Bhagawad Gita also. Ending one’s own life has never gained anything in life.

 “Since God’s intention is to preserve life, Suicide is against God’s will.” Therefore a person while construing suicide doing an act against the nature. He who does so doing it in against the nature of the god’s will. According to the God, suicide is nothing but a rebellion against him and he who do so is doing nothing but a sin. And as per the theory of transmigration of soul[27] as described by Manu he who does his karma as per the god wishes and theory will always receive heaven after his death and his soul becomes pure and vital. Therefore killing oneself is nowhere justified under the eyes of god because he made human to live his life not to end his life.

• Different Religions Views on the aspect of Suicide:

Concept of Hinduism: while there is no formal Hindu teaching on assisted suicide or euthanasia, there is general concern in Hinduism that prematurely ending one’s life could negatively impact their Karma.[28] The concept of karma (transmigration of soul)[29] centers around the belief that good and bad occurrence in one’s life are caused by the actions taken in the past lives since Hindu believes in reincarnation. “We believe that whatever suffering you experience now is because of something you did in the past,” Sarma says. “So if you circumvent karma by taking some action to stop suffering, you will pay for it later.” In fact, Sarma says, the act of delaying suffering may further increase bad karma in the next life. At the same time, some Hindus believe there are circumstances that could justify a hastening of death. “There are some who believe that if you have reached a stage in your life when you can no longer worship properly [due to illness or infirmity], then you are justified in asking your doctor to hasten your death,” Sarma says.

In Hinduism, the ideal death is a conscious death, and this means that palliative treatment will be a problem if they reduce mental alertness. The state of mind that allows a person to choose euthanasia may affect the process of reincarnation, since one’s final thought are relevant to the process.

Concept of Islam:  Islamic teachings oppose physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. “Muslims believe that life is sacred and comes from God; therefore it is a sin to take life,”[30] Islam also teaches that God alone decides how long someone will live and when they will die, according to Ayman Shabana, a visiting fellow at the Islamic Legal Studies Program at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass. “There is this reluctance … to make any kind of decisions that would end life prematurely because it is believed that [these decisions] are solely in the hands of God,” Shabana says.

Concept of Judaism: Under Jewish law, the directive to preserve human life generally outweighs other considerations, including the desire to alleviate pain and suffering. According to Rabbi Leonard A. Sharzer, associate director for bioethics at the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies at The Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City, Judaism teaches that life is a precious gift from God. A person’s life belongs to God, he says, and therefore deciding when it ends should be left to God.

All three major Jewish movements in the United States – Orthodox, Conservative and Reform – prohibit suicide and assisted suicide, even in cases of painful, terminal illnesses. “There are some minority views – that suicide might be permissible in rare, certain circumstances – but the majority view among all [movements] is that it’s not permissible to take one’s own life under any circumstances,” says Sharzer.

Concept of Catholicism: The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The church teaches that life should not be prematurely shortened because it is a gift from God, says John A. Di Camillo, staff ethicist at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, Pa. “We don’t have the authority to take into our hands when life will end,” he says. “That’s the Creator’s decision.”

Catholic thinkers like Di Camillo contend that the decision to take one’s own life often comes as a result of issues like poor pain management, despair and loneliness, or the feeling of being a burden on family and others. These conditions, he believes, can be addressed with better palliative and psychological care. “We don’t give enough attention to people near the end of life because we’re afraid of the end of life and don’t want to come to grips with it,” Di Camillo says.

• Should choosing to die be a crime? What happens when religion allows a person to give up the food and water towards death? Does the state has right to intervene?

 

Talking about the “Jain Community practice of Santhara” question has been in the news from the past two decades as the Rajasthan High Court declared the Jain religious practice of santhara to be illegal. But for the outraged Jains across the country, there is no doubt, nor debate: no government and court of law, they say, has the right to prevent a person to from voluntarily choosing his death for higher spiritual goal.

Jainism ancient tradition of Santhara came into question in 2006 when Nikhil Soni, a lawyer from jaipur filled a PIL against it in High Court.

“A person is allowed to take Santhara only in case of old age or if he is suffering from an incurable illness, “said Panachand Jain, a retired Rajasthan High Court judge who filed one of the many replies to Soni’s PIL in defence of the practice. “People who take Santhara do it to shed their negative karma.”

Soni’s petition, however, argued that Santhara is just another form of suicide that cannot have a place in modern society. After nine years of litigation – with the state of Rajasthan fighting as one of the respondents in support of the Jain community – the court eventually ordered that Santhara must be abolished and treated as a criminal offence of attempt to suicide; those who support a Jain’s decision to take Santhara must be charged with abetment of suicide.

3. Conclusion: Lastly, what are the Pros and Cons of Suicide?

In order to conclude with the conclusion on the questions which definitely need answers? We need to elaborate:

Does man’s free moral agency allow him to do anything even to include willful taking away of his own life? Do suicide is the only option left with the person who faces an uneven danger in life which is beyond his control? Or a person must also see the positive sides of the coin to fight for the justice and live longer?

While considering the above question what so ever arguments stated above in the light of the explanation are Suicide as per Moral grounds, “it is not permissible to take away one’s own life just because of self love and when future bad more than good.”

Therefore man’s free moral agency would not allow him to do anything against the nature of God creations. But while taking into the lights of above cases stated and advancement in the modern society due to the due diligence it is required by society to consider even the Right to Die as an important and necessary right granted to every individual.

While also considering the Religious grounds, “Since God’s intention is to preserve life, Suicide is against God’s will.” Therefore a person while construing suicide doing an act against the nature of god.

As per the religious aspects are concerned Hindu mythology also follows the theory of transmigration of soul which says a human soul gets to the door of heaven only when his karmas are pure. Therefore Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christians are also in the believe that killing oneself in nothing but an act of cowardice and one must not follow it even in the hardest of his deeds.

Lastly, in order to consider the Legal grounds, this says “In India Attempt to commit is punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the establishment of the Section 309 of the I.P.C. which read as:

“Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.”

Therefore, by virtue of the light an arguments made in legal grounds it is clearly stated that in the country like India where god is the almighty nobody goes against him except in the worst condition which includes rarerest of rare case therefore Suicide can be granted to the person who comes under this category. So it is clear from the above conclusion that Suicide is nothing but an act of killing oneself.

While considering all the three aspects of the suicide i.e. LEGAL MORAL AND RELIGIOUS it is now crystal clear that our country i.e.  India should recognize execution of Living Wills by persons, as is prevalent in US and other western countries. A living will is a written directive to the family, physician, health care provider’s to stop medical care if the person becomes terminally ill and is unable to express his or her wishes about stopping treatment. It is made when a man is capable of understanding the nature and consequences of his act. It may include instructions to limit, withhold or withdraw treatment. A person cannot be forced to enjoy right to life to his detriment, disadvantage or disliking. The ‘right to live’ in Article 21 of the Constitution includes the ‘right not to live. The court went on to say that person who attempts to commit suicide does not deserve prosecution because he has failed. There can be no justification to prosecute sacrifice of life. It exempts the physician from civil and criminal liability for withholding treatment or removing artificial respirator etc. and in case, the attending physician does not want to follow instructions, he has to remove himself from the case.

[1] Bonhoeffer, D. (1955). Ethics. London: SCM Press Ltd.

[2] Part XVIII of Indian Constitution (Art. 359)

[3] http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report241.pdf , retrieved on 7th Oct. 2015

[4] A.K. Gopalan v. Union of India AIR 1950 SC 27

[5] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597

[6]  Dwarka Poonja v. Emperor (1912) 14 Bom L.R 146

[7] A.I.R. 1987 CrLJ 549.

[8] 1988 Cr.LJ 549

[9] P Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) SCC 394

[10] Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) SCC 648

[11] Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 2178

[12]  Words of J.S. Mill

[13] (2011) 4 SCC 454

[14] (1968:42); Himmeifard, G. V. (1968). Minds. London: Weidenfield and Nicholso.

[15] Onimhawo (1999) defines

[16]  P.B. Sawant J. in Maruti Shripati Dubai v. State of Maharashtra, 1987 Cr. LJ 743 (Bom.)

[17]  Defines as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” by Merriam Webster.

[18] The suicide of a patient suffering from an incurable disease, affected by the taking of lethal drugs provided by a doctor for this purpose. “physician-assisted suicide”

[19] the part of English law that is derived from custom and judicial precedent rather than statutes.

[20] Passive Euthanasia: This is when life-sustaining treatments are withheld. The definition of passive euthanasia is often not clear cut. For example, if a doctor prescribes increasing doses of opioid analgesia (strong painkilling medications) which may eventually be toxic for the patient, some may argue whether passive euthanasia is taking place – in most cases, the doctor’s measure is seen as a passive one. Many claim that the term is wrong, because euthanasia has not taken place, because there is no intention to take life.

[21] http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report241.pdf , retrieved on 7th Oct. 2015

[22] The vegetative state is a clinical condition of complete unawareness of the self and the environment, accompanied by sleep-wake cycles, with either complete or partial preservation of hypothalamic and brain-stem autonomic functions. In addition, patients in a vegetative state show no evidence of sustained, reproducible, purposeful, or voluntary behavioral responses to visual, auditory, tactile, or noxious stimuli; show no evidence of language comprehension or expression; have bowel and bladder incontinence; and have variably preserved cranial-nerve and spinal reflexes. We define persistent vegetative state as a vegetative state present one month after acute traumatic or nontraumatic brain injury or lasting for at least one month in patients with degenerative or metabolic disorders or developmental malformations.

[23] John 10:10

[24] Bhagwad Gita Adhyay 2, Shloka no. 22.

[25] Id at 23

[26] Id at 24

[27] TRANSMIGRATION OF THE SOUL: Doctrine of rebirth based on the theory that an individual soul passes at death into a new body or new form of life. Central to the concept is the principle of universal causality, i.e. a person must receive reward or punishment if not here and now then in a subsequent birth, for his actions in the present one. The soul, it is held, does not cease with the physical body, but takes on a new birth in consequence of the person`s actions comprising thoughts, words and deeds. The cumulative effect of these determines his next existence. Attached to worldly objects, man will continue in the circuit of birth death rebirth until he attains spiritual liberation, annulling the effect of his past actions.

[28] Says Deepak Sarma, a professor of South Asian religions and philosophy at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, on 2 Jan 2000

[29] Supra

[30] Says David Stephen Powers, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y; dated on 2 Jan. 2000