Euthanasia And Right To Die Debates
🔍 What Is Euthanasia and the Right to Die?
Euthanasia: Intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve suffering.
Voluntary: With patient’s consent.
Involuntary: Without or against patient’s will.
Passive: Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
Active: Administering a lethal substance.
Right to Die: Legal and philosophical concept that a person has a right to end their own life, especially in cases of terminal illness or unbearable suffering.
⚖️ Key Legal Questions
Does the right to life include the right to die?
Can state laws prohibit euthanasia while respecting human dignity and autonomy?
How do courts balance individual rights vs. state interest in preserving life?
What role do doctors play, legally and ethically?
🧾 Landmark Cases on Euthanasia & Right to Die
1. Pretty v. United Kingdom (2002) — European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Facts:
Diane Pretty was terminally ill with motor neurone disease. She wanted her husband to help her die without prosecution.
Issue:
Did UK’s ban on assisted suicide violate her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights?
Decision:
ECHR rejected her claim.
Held that the right to life (Article 2) does not include a right to die, and a ban on assisted suicide is not a breach of human rights.
Impact:
Set a European precedent: Article 2 protects life, but does not guarantee control over death.
2. Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993) — UK House of Lords
Facts:
Tony Bland was in a persistent vegetative state after the Hillsborough disaster.
Doctors sought court permission to withdraw life support.
Ruling:
The court allowed passive euthanasia, stating that withdrawing treatment is not unlawful killing if it is in the patient's best interest.
Significance:
First case to legally permit withdrawal of life support in the UK.
Distinguished between letting die and causing death.
3. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health (1990) — US Supreme Court
Facts:
Nancy Cruzan was in a vegetative state. Her family wanted to withdraw feeding tubes, but the state required clear evidence of her wishes.
Holding:
Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to refuse medical treatment, including life support.
However, states may impose procedural safeguards.
Key Principle:
Passive euthanasia is permitted if prior consent or advance directives exist.
4. Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011) — Supreme Court of India
Facts:
Aruna Shanbaug was in a vegetative state for 40 years after being assaulted.
Issue:
Petitioners asked for permission to allow euthanasia.
Ruling:
Active euthanasia was not allowed, but passive euthanasia was conditionally permitted in exceptional cases.
Laid down guidelines for future cases involving withdrawal of life support.
Importance:
Opened the door to regulated passive euthanasia in India.
Marked a shift in the Indian judiciary’s approach to end-of-life care.
5. Commonwealth v. Kevorkian (1994–1999) — USA (Michigan)
Facts:
Dr. Jack Kevorkian assisted more than 130 terminally ill patients to die. He was eventually convicted of second-degree murder.
Court Finding:
Court ruled that assisted suicide was not protected under constitutional rights.
Conviction affirmed: active euthanasia remains illegal in most US states.
Lesson:
Assisted suicide, even by consent, is still criminal in many jurisdictions unless explicitly legalized.
6. Nicklinson v. Ministry of Justice (2014) — UK Supreme Court
Facts:
Tony Nicklinson suffered from locked-in syndrome. He argued that the ban on assisted dying violated his human rights.
Ruling:
The court acknowledged his suffering but refused to legalize assisted suicide, stating it was a matter for Parliament, not judges.
Takeaway:
Courts may be sympathetic but defer to lawmakers on euthanasia.
7. Carter v. Canada (2015) — Supreme Court of Canada
Facts:
Gloria Taylor and others challenged Canada’s criminal code banning physician-assisted death.
Outcome:
The Court ruled the ban was unconstitutional, as it violated the rights to life, liberty, and security under the Canadian Charter.
Legal Effect:
Decriminalized physician-assisted dying under strict conditions.
Importance:
One of the most progressive rulings on the right to die globally.
📘 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Issue | Outcome | Key Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pretty v. UK (2002) | ECHR | Right to die under Article 2 | Denied | No right to die under ECHR |
| Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993) | UK | Withdrawal of life support | Allowed | Legalised passive euthanasia |
| Cruzan v. Missouri (1990) | USA | Refusal of treatment | Allowed | Recognised patient autonomy |
| Aruna Shanbaug (2011) | India | Euthanasia | Passive only | Set passive euthanasia guidelines |
| Kevorkian Case (1994–99) | USA | Assisted suicide | Conviction upheld | Active euthanasia illegal |
| Nicklinson (2014) | UK | Assisted dying ban | Upheld | Courts defer to Parliament |
| Carter v. Canada (2015) | Canada | Ban on assisted dying | Struck down | Legalised assisted death under limits |
⚖️ Core Legal Principles
Passive euthanasia (withdrawing treatment) is legal in many jurisdictions if in the patient’s best interest.
Active euthanasia or assisted suicide is more controversial and generally prohibited unless specific laws allow it.
Some courts have recognized a limited right to die, but most defer to legislatures for reforms.
A growing trend toward recognizing autonomy, dignity, and compassionate choice in end-of-life decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments