Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Indian Context
Physician Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Indian Context
Introduction
Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) are sensitive and complex issues involving the right to die with dignity. Both involve intentionally ending the life of a person suffering from an incurable or painful condition but differ in who performs the final act:
Euthanasia: A doctor or a third party actively administers the means to cause death.
Physician Assisted Suicide: The doctor provides the means (such as medication) for the patient to end their own life, but the patient performs the final act.
Legal Status in India
In India, both euthanasia and PAS have been traditionally illegal and considered acts of murder or culpable homicide under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, judicial developments have nuanced the approach, recognizing the right to die with dignity under certain circumstances.
Types of Euthanasia
Active Euthanasia: Deliberate action to cause death (illegal in India).
Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment with the intention to allow death (conditionally permitted).
Physician Assisted Suicide: Illegal as it involves abetting suicide.
Key Judicial Pronouncements
1. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)
Facts: The petition challenged the constitutional validity of Section 309 IPC (criminalizing attempt to suicide) and the right to die.
Issue: Whether the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to die.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that right to life does not include the right to die, but right to life includes the right to live with dignity.
Impact: Attempt to suicide remained a criminal offense, and euthanasia was not permitted.
2. Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011)
Facts: Aruna Shanbaug was in a persistent vegetative state for decades following an assault. A petition was filed seeking permission for euthanasia.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia under strict guidelines but rejected active euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia involves withdrawing life support to allow natural death.
The court emphasized the sanctity of life but recognized dignity in death.
Significance: This landmark case legalized passive euthanasia with strict safeguards.
3. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
Facts: The petition sought recognition of the right to die with dignity, including living wills (advance directives).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court declared that right to die is part of the right to life under Article 21.
Allowed passive euthanasia and upheld the validity of living wills (advance medical directives).
Laid down strict procedures for execution of living wills.
Significance: Clarified the legal framework for passive euthanasia and permitted patients to refuse life support.
Physician Assisted Suicide in India
PAS is still illegal as it amounts to abetting suicide under Indian law.
Courts have not distinguished PAS from euthanasia or suicide legally, maintaining its criminal status.
There is no legislative framework or judicial approval for PAS.
Ethical and Social Considerations
Issues of consent, vulnerability, and potential abuse arise with euthanasia and PAS.
Indian society, being largely conservative, has had mixed reactions, with a preference for preserving life.
Medical ethics emphasize do no harm, complicating the acceptance of euthanasia or PAS.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Position in Indian Law | Case Law Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Right to die | Not an absolute right; part of right to life | Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab |
| Active euthanasia | Illegal | Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (rejected) |
| Passive euthanasia | Legal under strict conditions | Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India; Common Cause v. Union of India |
| Physician assisted suicide | Illegal, abetment of suicide | No legal approval |
| Living wills (advance directives) | Allowed under judicial guidelines | Common Cause v. Union of India |
Conclusion
In India, the law recognizes the right to live with dignity, which extends to a limited right to die with dignity through passive euthanasia under strict judicial safeguards. However, active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide remain illegal. The courts have paved the way for humane end-of-life care but have balanced this with safeguarding life and preventing misuse.
India’s approach continues to evolve, reflecting legal, ethical, and societal concerns around this profound issue.
RELATED Blog
0 comments