Legality of Euthanasia
This article was written by Ayushman Patnaik, a student of Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies, GGSIPU
“I think those who have a terminal illness and are in great pain should have the right to choose to end their own life, and those that help them should be free from prosecution.” – Stephen Hawking
Euthanasia is an amalgamation of two Greek words ‘eu’ and ‘thanatos’ which means good death. Euthanasia is a process through which a physician administers a drug into the body of a person only after the consent of that person to end his life. However, the legality of euthanasia is still questionable and is a hot topic for debate all over the world. There have been many attempts to legalise the process of euthanasia, even various bills were drafted for legalising euthanasia but none of them was successfully implemented.
History of euthanasia
Euthanasia has been a part of our society since the Roman and Greece age. Although euthanasia as a process didn’t evolve much during the Roman era, it started getting attention after the emergence of the Hippocratic oath which clearly stated that the physicians must not give any deadly medicines to anyone. The process of euthanasia was questioned and was held unethical for both doctors and the patients, after the introduction of the Hippocratic oath. Euthanasia was also used by Hitler during the Nazi rule, where he ordered the killing of every individual who was termed as unworthy or incurable in a mental hospital. It was used as an instrument for killing all the mentally disabled or psychiatric patients.
In 1938, The Euthanasia Society of America was formed, the main objective of this society was to obtain legal and social validity. Many attempts were made but hey failed to do the same. So, it was decided to form an educational council to change both medical ethics and public morals. In 1976, the New Jersey Supreme court heard the first ‘right to die’ case where the parents of a patient with brain damage wanted to remove the ventilator to which the doctors refused. However, the court decided that the right to privacy i.e. an unwritten right in the constitution encompasses the decision to deny the medical treatment. [1]
Charles Killick Millard created the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society in 1935. The campaign advocated for British government to allow euthanasia. In January 1936, a lethal amount of morphine and cocaine was administered to King George V to prolong his death. He was struggling from cardio-respiratory failure at the time, and his doctor, Lord Dawson, advised to end his life.[2]
In India the traces of euthanasia were present since 1985, when a private bill was presented in the upper house of the Maharashtra legislature which stated that the doctors should be exempted from any civil or criminal liability who removes the artificial measures after the consent of the patient. [3]
Debate over legal validity
Arguments against legalization of euthanasia
A doctor before starting his career take the Hippocratic oath, it does not allow any doctor to administer a harmful dose that would kill his patient. It is unethical for the doctors, as they are obliged to save the life of the patient and not to take the life of their patient. It also undermines the dedication of doctors to save people’s lives. This is one of the reasons due to which euthanasia can’t be legalized.
If euthanasia is legalized, then most of the vulnerable people who feel that they are a burden to the society might opt for euthanasia. The outlook of the vulnerable people will change, and they would think that this would be the best option for ending their life than opting for suicide as they might face legal repercussions due to it.
Patients opt for euthanasia because most of them go into a state of depression, and they are not able to cope up with the constant suffering of any chronic condition. They give up on their life and think that there is no solution for the condition they are suffering and decides that choosing peaceful dying is better than the painful suffering both mentally and physically. However, in some cases, life can be saved, and treatment could be provided for some specific conditions.
There are several moral and religious arguments that the life of an individual is gifted by God, and no other human has a right to take the life of any other human. Euthanasia is immoral and illegal in some of the religions. Euthanasia would weaken the core of the society i.e. an individual would lose the respect of their own life.
Arguments for legalization of euthanasia
Right to life is one of the basic human rights that every individual gets as soon as he/she is born. However, the question is whether an individual has a right to die? Or if the right to die comes within the scope of the right to life? All the people or organisations who are in favour of euthanasia believe that right to die comes in the ambit of right to life and every person must have the right to die. All the individuals should have freedom of choice regarding whether they want to live or not. Euthanasia gives every person the option of right to die peacefully and end their painful existence.
Another argument for the legalization of euthanasia is, in many countries, there is lack of funds, resources and hospital space. To reduce the burden on hospitals due to increasing cases with chronic diseases, then those people whose lives can be saved should be given priority over those individuals whose chronic disease could not be treated. In these cases, euthanasia is beneficial for countries with a lack of resources.
The right to life provides that every individual have a right to live his life with dignity. Although, if an individual think that he/she is losing their dignity and wants to end their life without any pain and peacefully to escape the miserable and painful life. Thus, practically it would be better for that person to die peacefully.
Also, the right to refuse medical treatment is well recognized in law, even those treatments that help in increasing their lifetime. Allowing this law to refute provides for a way to passive euthanasia.
Status of euthanasia in various countries
Australia- In 1995 an act was passed Rights of Terminally Ill Act, which made euthanasia legal in Australia. However, euthanasia is not legal throughout Australia but in some certain states. In June 2019, a law regarding physician-assisted suicide came into effect in the Australian state of Victoria, similarly, in December 2019 western Australia passed the similar law.
United States of America- There are two types of euthanasia i.e. passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is illegal throughout America but a doctor cannot be held liable if the patient himself or his legal guardians gives consent to stop the medical treatment. Active euthanasia is prohibited in the U.S but assisted suicide is legal in Colorado, Hawaii, Washington, New Jersey and many more. However, Louisiana expressly prohibits euthanasia in the bill of rights as mentioned that it is immoral and cruel.
United Kingdom- The practice of euthanasia is illegal in the U.K. It is prohibited and punishable to practice and can be convicted for assisting suicide. There were many attempts to legalise euthanasia, several bills were proposed but all the bills were rejected by the parliament of U.K. Dr Nigel is the only doctor in Britain to be convicted of attempted euthanasia and was sentenced one-year imprisonment in 1992. Similar to the U.S, Britain also legalise passive euthanasia i.e. if any physician with the consent of the patient can stop the treatment a patient has the right to refuse treatment and no court order is needed for this.
Japan- In Japan there is no law present about euthanasia and no cases have been heard by the supreme court regarding the same. Although two cases have been heard by the local court about both active and passive euthanasia. In both these cases the doctor was punished for violating the laws and taking the lives of their patient. Both these cases laid down the guidelines or the conditions under which both active and passive euthanasia could be made illegal.
Canada- Canada has made voluntarily active euthanasia legal only for those individuals who are over the age of 18 i.e. legally competent to give consent and only those who have a serious illness that natural death is foreseeable. This law came into effect in 2016 after passing of the bill by both the Parliament of Canada and royal assent. It was deliberated by courts and the court decided to remove the ban on assisted suicide by doctors and gave 1 year to parliament to discuss and pass legislation for legalising euthanasia.
India- Passive euthanasia has been made legal in India in 2018 but subjects to some strict restrictions. For passive euthanasia, a patient must be terminally ill or in a vegetative state. This decision was made in the case of Aruna Shanbaug, she was terminally ill and was in a vegetative state until she died in 2015. In 2018, through a five-judge constitutional bench, the Supreme Court of India ruled that, if rigid protocols are implemented, the government will uphold “living wills” to require patients to be passively euthanized if the patient suffers from a terminal disease or is in a vegetative state.[4]
Landmark cases on euthanasia in India
- Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)
In this case Aruna was a nurse in KEM hospital, Mumbai. On 27th November 1973 she was attacked by a sweeper, he wrapped a chain around her neck and choked her while trying to rape her. Due to the strangulation the oxygen to her brain stopped and she became brain dead. She was in a persistent vegetative state since that incident and was surviving on mashed food and could not move her hands and legs. It was alleged by the doctors that there is no chance of improvement in her health condition and she may remain like this for rest of her life. One of her friend filed a case in the court to allow the doctors to terminate the life of her friend Aruna.
In this case the court held that according to the team of doctors appointed by court, she is not brain dead and as she can still breathe and she also responds to necessary stimulus. Though she is in a vegetative state, but her condition is stable, it would not be justifiable if her life gets terminated. This case explained the problems concerning euthanasia and also set standards for massive euthanasia. In addition, the court further suggested repealing section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Also broad guidelines for legalizing passive euthanasia in India was also issued.
- Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (1996)
In 2005, a NGO filed a PIL in the Supreme Court for legalizing euthanasia and living will. This society also wrote various letter to ministry of law and justice about passive euthanasia in the past. However, government did not respond to those letters, so the society decided to file a PIL. Petitioner argued that the right to live a dignified life remains with an individual till hi dies. So, the right to die also comes under the scope right to life and personal liberty. The petitioners also argued for legalizing living wills in which a person experiencing chronic pain and distress can deny the medical services and allow his family to stop it.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that, under Art.21 of the Indian Constitution, an individual has a right to die as part of his right to life and personal liberty. Therefore, this decision requires elimination of life-support devices for terminally ill or untreatable comas. In this case, the Court also set out several guidelines regarding the protocol for the implementation of living wills and established the requirements for passive euthanasia to take effect.
- Gian Kaur vs. The State of Punjab
In this case, Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh committed the offense of abetment to suicide of their daughter-in-law. The Trial Court sentenced them both for their actions under section 306 of The Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years each and was liable to pay the fine of Rs 2,000/- or, in the absence of payment of the prescribed fine, to a nine-month imprisonment.
The constitutional bench held that the right to life, which requires the right to live with human dignity, would mean that such a right persists until the natural death. It also includes “death with dignity” but such nature should not be mistaken with the unnatural end of life that curtails the normal period of life. The Hon’ble Court also referred to the issue of whether Section 306 of The Indian Penal Code is lawful or not. The court observed that assisted attempt to commit suicide and assisted suicide are punishable in the interests of society for coherent reasons.
Conclusion
Thus the legality of euthanasia is still debatable and many questions have been raised regarding its validity. Like every individual has a right to live a dignified life, similarly, every individual must have a right to die i.e. to decide whether they want to live or not. However, this statement is very controversial as many points can be raised against the ‘right to die’. If euthanasia is made legal then it would pose a great threat to the society and many would consider it unethical and immoral. The word euthanasia means good death i.e. a peaceful and painless death, people want to opt for this because they don’t want to live the miserable life they are living and want to end their life as they don’t want to live in agony. If the right to die is applied, then it must be implemented with some safeguards to protect the interest of the whole society. Providing restrictions for this right is essential to avoid the misuse of this right by any individual.
[1] https://www.all.org/learn/euthanasia/historic-review/
[2] A king, a doctor, and a convenient death, BMJ 1994; 308
[3] Supryo Routh, “Right to Euthanasia; A case against Criminalization” Criminal Law journal, vol. 112
Related Posts
About The Author
