From the moment of his birth, a person is clothed with basic human rights.

Right to life
is one of the basic as well as fundamental right without which all rights cannot be
enjoyed. Right to life means a human being has an essential right to live, particularly
that such human being has the right not to be killed by another human being. But the
question arises that if a person has a right to live, whether he has a right not to live i.e
whether he has a right to die? Whiling giving this answer, the Indian courts expressed
different opinions. In M.S Dubal vs. State of Maharastra, the Bombay High Court held
that right to life under article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes right to die. On the
other hand in Chenna Jagadeeswar vs. State of AP, the AP High Court said that right to
die is not a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However in P.
Rathinams case Supreme Court of India observed that the right to live includes right
not to live i.e right to die or to terminate ones life. But again in Gain Kaur vs State of
Punjab, a five member bench overruled the P.Rathainams case and held that right to
life underArticle 21 does not include Right to die or right to be killed.
Right to life including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of
such right up to the end of natural life. This may include the right of a dying man to die
with dignity. But the right to die with dignity is not to be confused with the right to die
an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life. Thus the concept of right to life is
central to the debate on the issue of Euthanasia. One of the controversial issues in the
recent past has been the question of legalizing the right to die or Euthanasia.
Euthanasia is controversial since it involves the deliberate termination of human life.
Patient suffering from terminal diseases are often faced with great deal of pain as the
diseases gradually worsens until it kills them and this may be so frightening for them
that they would rather end their life than suffering it. So the question is whether people
should be given assistance in killing themselves, or whether they should be left to suffer
the pain cause by terminal illness.
The term Euthanasia comes from two Ancient Greek words: Eu means Good, and
thantos means death, so Euthanasia means good death. It is an act or practice of
ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or in an incurable
condition by injection or by suspending extra ordinary medical treatment in order to free
him of intolerable pain or from terminal illness.Euthanasia is defined as an intentional
killing by an act or omission of person whose life is felt is not to be worth living. It is also
known as Mercy Killing which is an act where the individual who, is in an irremediable
condition or has no chances of survival as he is suffering from painful life, ends his life in
a painless manner. It is a gentle, easy and painless death. It implies the procuring of an
individuals death, so as to avoid or end pain or suffering, especially of individuals
suffering from incurable diseases. Oxford dictionary defines it as the painless killing of a
person who has an incurable disease or who is in an irreversible coma. According to the
House of Lords select Committee on Medical Ethics, it is a deliberate intervention under
taken with the express intention of ending life to relieve intractable suffering.Thus it
can be said that Euthanasia is the deliberated and intentional killing of a human being
by a direct action, such as lethal injection, or by the failure to perform even the most
basic medical care or by withdrawing life support system in order to release that human
being from painful life. It is basically to bring about the death of a terminally ill patient

or a disabled. It is resorted to so that the last days of a patient who has been suffering
from such an illness which is terminal in nature or which has disabled him can
peacefully end up his life and which can also prove to be less painful for him. Thus the
basic intention behind euthanasia is to ensure a less painful death to a person who is in
any case going to die after a long period of suffering. Euthanasia is practiced so that a
person can live as well as die with dignity. In brief, it means putting a person to painless
death in case of incurable diseases or when life become purpose less or hopeless as a
result of mental or physical handicap.
This research paper thus deals with one of the most debated subjects in the world, is
euthanasia. The debate is regarding the legalization of euthanasia. This debate is a
continuing one as some people are of the view that life is sacred and no one has got the
right to end it whereas on the other hand some say that life belongs to oneself and so
each person has got the right to decide what he wants to do with it even if it amounts to
dying.
In our day to day life we often come across terminally ill patients that are bedridden and
are totally dependent on others. It actually hurts their sentiments. Looking at them we
would say that death would be a better option for them rather than living such a painful
life; which is painful physically as well as psychologically. But if on the other hand we
look at the Netherlands where euthanasia is made legal, we will see that how it is
abused there. So following its example, no one wants euthanasia to be legalized in
India. But the question that lies before us is which will be a better option. In this paper,
some basic issues regarding euthanasia are discussed and then it is left to the reader to
decide which course would be better: legalizing or not legalizing euthanasia. Although
the Supreme Court has already given its decision on this issue, yet some doubts persist
on its execution.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA:
There is a conceptual distinction between suicide and euthanasia. In a suicide a man
voluntarily kills himself by stabbing, poisoning or by any other way. No doubt in suicide
one intentionally attempts to take his life. It is an act or instance of intentionally killing
oneself mostly due to depression or various reasons such as frustration in love, failure in
examinations or in getting a good job etc. on the other hand, in euthanasia there is an
action of some other person to bring to an end the life of a third person. In euthanasia, a
third person is either actively or passively involved i.e he aids or abets the killing of
another person. It is important to mention in this context that there is also a difference
between assisted suicide and euthanasia. Assisted suicide is an act which
intentionally helps another to commit suicide, for example by providing him with the
means to do so. When it is a doctor who helps a patient to kill himself (by providing a
prescription for lethal medication) it is a physician assisted suicide. Thus, in assisted
suicide the patient is in complete control of the process that leads to death because
he/she is the person who performs the act of suicide. The other person simply helps (for
example, providing the means for carrying out the action). On the other hand
euthanasia may be active such as when a doctor gives a lethal injection to a patient or
passive such as when a doctor removes life support system of the patient.

Euthanasia is a complex matter; there are many different types of euthanasia.

Euthanasia may be classified according to consent into three types.
1. Voluntary euthanasia- when the person who is killed has requested to be killed.
2. Non-voluntary euthanasia- when the person who is killed made no request and gave
no consent. In other words, it is done when the person is unable to communicate his
wishes, being in coma.
3. Involuntary euthanasia- when the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the
contrary. In other words, it is involuntary when the person killed gives his consent not to
die.
There is a debate within the medical and bioethics literature on whether or not the nonvoluntary or involuntary killing of persons can be regarded as euthanasia, irrespective of
consent. Some say that consent is not considered to be one of their criteria. However
others see consent as essential. According to them killing of a person without the
persons consent (non-voluntary or involuntary) is not euthanasia. It is murder and
hence euthanasia can be voluntary only. Euthanasia can be also divided into two types
according to means of death.
1. Active euthanasia- it is also known as Positive Euthanasia or Aggressive
Euthanasia. It refers to causing intentional death of a human being by direct
intervention. It is a direct action performed to end useless life and a meaningless
existence. For example by giving lethal dose of a drug or by giving a lethal injection.
Active euthanasia is usually a quicker means of causing death and all forms of active
euthanasia are illegal.
2. Passive euthanasia- it is also known as Negative Euthanasia or Non-Aggressive
Euthanasia. It is intentionally causing death by not providing essential, necessary and
ordinary care or food and water. It implies to discontinuing, withdrawing or removing
artificial life support system. Passive euthanasia is usually slower and more
uncomfortable than active. Most forms of voluntary, passive and some instance of nonvoluntary, passive euthanasia are legal.
There is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or not
done. Thus, some medical actions often levelled as Passive Euthanasia are no form of
euthanasia, since intention to take life is lacking. These acts include not commencing
treatment that would not provide a benefit to the patient, withdrawing treatment that
has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or is unwanted, and the giving of
high doses of pain-killers that may endanger life, when they have been shown to be
necessary. All those are part of good medical practice, endorsed by law, when they are
properly carried out.
GLOBAL POSITION
In England, following a series of decisions of the House of Laws relating to euthanasia
vary greatly and are constantly subject to changes as cultural values shift and better
Palliative care or treatments become available. In some countries it is legalised or in

others, it is criminalized.
AUSTRALIA
The Northern Territory of Australia became the first country to legalize euthanasia by
passing the Rights of the Terminally ILL Act, 1996. It was held to be legal in the case of
Wake v. Northern Territory of Australia by the Supreme Court of Northern Territory of
Australia. Subsequently the Euthanasia Laws Act, 1997 legalised it. Although it is a
crime in most Australian states to assist euthanasia, prosecution have been rare. In
2002, the matter that the relatives and friends who provided moral support to an elder
women to commit suicide was extensively investigated by police, but no charges were
made. In Tasmania in 2005, a nurse was convicted of assisting in the death of her
mother and father who were both suffering from incurable illnesses. She was sentenced
to two and half years in jail but the judge later suspended the conviction because he
believed the community did not want the woman put behind bars. This sparked debate
about decriminalization of euthanasia.
ALBANIA
Euthanasia was legalized in Albania in 1999, it was stated that any form of voluntary
euthanasia was legal under the rights of the Terminally ILL act of 1995. Passive
euthanasia is considered legal if three or more family members consent to the
decisions.
BELGIUM
Euthanasia was made legal 2002. The Belgian Parliament had enacted the Belgium Act
on Euthanasia in September 2002, which defines euthanasia as intentionally
terminating life by someone other than the person concerned at the latters
request.Requirements for allowing euthanasia are very strict which includes the patient
must be major, has made the request voluntary, well considered and repeated and
he/she must be in a condition of consent and unbearable physical or mental suffering
that can be alleviated. All these acts must be referred to the authorities before allowing
in order to satisfying essential requirements.
NETHARLANDS
Netherlands is the first country in the world to legalise both euthanasia and assisted
suicide in 2002. According to the penal code of the Netherlands killing a person on his
request is punishable with twelve years of imprisonment or fine and also a assisting a
person to commit suicide is also punishable by imprisonment up to three years or fine.
In spite of this provision, the courts of Netherlands have come to interpret the law as
providing a defence to charges of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. The
defence allowed is that of necessity. The criteria laid down by the courts to determine
whether the defence of necessity applies in a given case of euthanasia, have been
summarized by Mrs. Borst-Eilers as follows;
1. The request for euthanasia must come only from the patient and must be entirely
free and voluntary.

2. The patients request must be well considered, durable and persistent.

3. The patient must be experiencing intolerable (not necessarily physical) suffering, with
no prospect of improvement.
4. Euthanasia must be the last resort. Other alternatives to alleviate the patients
situation must be considered and found wanting.
5. Euthanasia must be performed by a physician.
6. The physician must consult with an independent physician colleague who has
experience in this field.
Thus, though active euthanasia is technically unlawful in the Netherlands, it is
considered justified (not legally punishable) if the physician follows the guidelines.
In 2002, Netherlands legalised euthanasia. The law codified a 20 years old convention of
not prosecuting doctors who have committed euthanasia in very specific cases, under
very specific circumstances. It allows a doctor to end the life of a patient suffering
unbearable pain from an incurable condition, if the patient so requests. The law requires
a long standing doctor patient relationship, patients awareness of other available
medical options and that the patient must have obtained a second professional opinion.
CANADA
In Canada, patients have the right to refuse life sustaining treatments but they do not
have the right to demand for euthanasia or assisted suicide. The Supreme Court of
Canada in Rodriguez vs Attorney,1994 General for British Columbia said that in the case
of assisted suicide the interest of the state will prevail over individuals interest.
U.S.A
There is a distinction between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. While active
euthanasia is prohibited but physicians are not held liable if they withhold or withdraw
the life sustaining treatment of the patient either on his request or at the request of
patients authorized representative. Euthanasia has been made totally illegal by the
United States Supreme Court in the cases Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill.
Only in Oregon, a state in America, physician assisted suicide has been legalized in
1994 under Death and Dignity Act. In April 2005, California State legislative committee
approved a bill and has become 2nd state to legalise assisted suicide.
ENGLAND
Lords it is now settled that a person has a right to refuse life sustaining treatment as
part of his rights of autonomy and self- determination. The House of Lords also
permitted non voluntary euthanasia in case of patients in a persistent vegetative state.
Moreover in a recent case, a British High Court has granted a woman, paralyzed from
neck, the right to die by having life support system switched off( Dr. S.S Jaswal and S.C
Baseen,civil and military law journal,p.g-90).

THE UNITED KINGDOM

Euthanasia is illegal in United Kingdom but on November 5, 2006 Britain Royal College
of obstructions and gynaecologists submitted a proposal to the Nuffield Counsel of
Bioethics calling for consideration of permitting the euthanasia of disabled new-born.
SWITZERLAND
According to Article 115 of Swiss Penal Code, suicide is not a crime and assisting suicide
is a crime if only if the motive is selfish. It does not require the involvement of physician
nor is that the patient terminally ill. It only requires that the motive must be unselfish. In
Switzerland, euthanasia is illegal but physician assisted suicide has been made legal.
However decriminalizing euthanasia was tried in 1997 but it recommended where a
non- physician helper would have to be prosecuted whereas the physician would not.
Death is not a right, it is the end of all rights and a fate that none of us can escape. The
ultimate right we have as human beings is the right to life, an inalienable right not even
the person who possesses it can never take that away. It is similar to the fact that our
right to liberty does not give us the freedom to sell ourselves into slavery. In addition,
this right to die does not equal a right to die with dignity. Dying in a dignified manner
relates to how one confronts death, not the manner in which one dies since history
recounts many situations of individuals facing degrading deaths in a dignified way. Of
course, what this objection really relates to is the supposed lack of dignity of forcing
someone to endure suffering rather than allowing them to end their life. However better
pain alleviation techniques are a more moral solution to this problem than killing those
who are suffering. The question whetherArticle 21 includes right to die or not first came
into consideration in the case State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Shripathi Dubal . It was
held in this case by the Bombay High Court that right to life also includes right to die
and Section 309 was struck down. The court clearly said in this case that right to die is
not unnatural; it is just uncommon and abnormal. Also the court mentioned about many
instances in which a person may want to end his life. This was upheld by the Supreme
Court in the case P. Rathinam v. Union of India. However in the case Gian Kaur v. State
of Punjab it was held by the five judge bench of the Supreme Court that the right to
life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die. The
court clearly mentioned in this case that Article 21 only guarantees right to life and
personal liberty and in no case can the right to die be included in it. In India, like almost
in other countries, euthanasia has no legal aspect. In India there is no difference
between active and passive euthanasia and no penal law yet introduced in I.P.C, which
specifically deals with euthanasia. The every act of aiding and abetting the commission
of suicide are punished under the section 306 of the I.P.C. Distinguishing euthanasia
from suicide, Justice Lodha in Naresh Maratra Sakhee vs Union of India, observed that,
suicide by its nature is an act of self-killing or self-destruction, an act of terminating
ones own act and without the aid or assistance of any other human agency. Euthanasia
or Mercy killing on the other hand means implies the intervention of other human
agency to end the life. Mercy killing is thus not suicide and the provision of section 309
does not cover an attempt at mercy killing. The two concepts are both factually and
legally distinct. Euthanasia or Mercy killing is nothing best homicide whatever the

circumstances in which it is affected.

In case of physicians, there is an intention to cause death of patient, hence he can be
charged under clause (1) of section 300 of I.P.C but where there is valid consent of the
deceased, exception 5of section 300 is attracted and thus the act of the physician is
considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I of section 304. In
case of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, the act of physician can be fall under
section 88 and 92 of IPC as there is an intention to causing death of a patient for his
benefit. And other relatives who are aware of such intention either of the patient or of
the physician can be charged under section 202 of IPC. The Supreme Court explained
the position of Indian law on euthanasia in M.S.Dabal vs state of Maharashtra as under:
Mercy killing is nothing but homicide, whatever the circumstances in which it is
affected. Unless it is specifically accepted it cannot be offences. Indian Penal Code
further punishes not only abetment of homicide, but also abetment of suicide.
The followings are the arguments against euthanasia:
1. The human life is gift of God and taking life is wrong and immoral human beings
cannot be given the right to play the part of God. The one who suffers pain is only due
to ones karma. Thus euthanasia devalues human life.
2. It is totally against the medical ethics, morals and public policy. Medical ethics call for
nursing, care giving and healing and not ending the life of the patient. In the present
time, medical science is advancing at a great pace. Thus even the most incurable
diseases are becoming curable today. Thus instead of encouraging a patient to end his
life, the medical practitioners should encourage the patients to lead their painful life
with strength which should be moral as well as physical. The decision to ask for
euthanasia is not made solely by the patient. Even the relatives of the patient pay an
important role in doing that. Hence, it is probable that the patient comes under pressure
and takes such a drastic step of ending his life. Of course in such cases the pressure is
not physical, it is rather moral and psychological which proves to be much stronger. The
patient himself starts to feel that he is a burden on the relatives when they take such a
decision for him and finally he also succumbs to it.
3. It is feared that if euthanasia is legalised then other groups of more vulnerable people
will become at risk of feeling into taking that option themselves. Groups that represent
disabled people are against the legalisation of euthanasia on the ground that such
groups of vulnerable people would feel obliged to opt for euthanasia as they may see
themselves as a burden to society.
4. It has a slippery slope effect, for example firstly it can be legalised only for terminally
ill people but later on laws can be changed and then it may allow for non- voluntary or
involuntary.
5. Acceptance of euthanasia as an option could exercise a detrimental effect a societal
attitudes and on the doctor patient relationship. The doctor patient relationship is based

on mutual trust, it is feared this trust may be lost if euthanasia is legalised.

6. When suicide is not allowed then euthanasia should also not be allowed. A person
commits suicide when he goes into a state of depression and has no hope from the life.
Similar is the situation when a person asks for euthanasia. But such tendency can be
lessened by proper care of such patients and showing hope in them.
7. Patient would not be able to trust either doctors or their relatives as many of them
were taking about patients painless dignified death and it became a euphemism for
assisted murder.
8. Miracles do happen in our society especially when it is a matter of life and death,
there are examples of patients coming out of coma after years and we should not forget
human life is all about hope.
Followings are the reasons to legalise euthanasia;
1. Euthanasia means ending the life a person who is suffering from some terminal
illness which is making his life painful as well as miserable or in other words ending a
life which is not worth living. But the problem is that how should one decide whether his
life is any longer worth living or not. Thus, the term euthanasia is rather too ambiguous.
This has been a topic for debate since a long time i.e. whether euthanasia should be
allowed or not. At present, the debate is mainly regarding active euthanasia rather than
passive euthanasia. The dispute is regarding the conflicts of interests: the interest of the
society and that of the individual. Which out of these should prevail over the other?
According to the supporters of euthanasia the decision of the patients should be
accepted. If on the other hand we weigh the social values with the individual interest
then we will clearly see that here the interest of the individual will outweigh the interest
of the society. The society aims at interest of the individuals rather it is made with the
purpose of assuring a dignified and a peaceful life to all. Now if the individual who is
under unbearable pain is not able to decide for himself then it surely will hamper his
interest. In that case it will surely be a negation of his dignity and human rights.
2. Euthanasia provides a way to relieve the intolerably extreme pain and suffering of an
individual. It relieves the terminally ill people from a lingering death.
3. The essence of human life is to live a dignified life and to force the person to live in
an undignified way is against the persons choice. Thus it expresses the choice of a
person which is a fundamental principle.
4. In many developing and under developed countries like India, there is lack of funds.
There is shortage of hospital space. So, the energy of doctors and hospital beds can be
used for those people whose life can be saved instead of continuing the life of those
who want to die. Another important point on which the supporters of euthanasia
emphasize is that a lot of medical facilities which amount a lot are being spent on these
patients who are in any case going to die. Thus, they argue that rather than spending
those on such patients, it will be much better to use such facilities for those who have

even fair chances of recovery.

5. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution clearly provides for living with dignity. A person
has a right to live a life with at least minimum dignity and if that standard is falling
below that minimum level then a person should be given a right to end his life.
Supporters of euthanasia also point out to the fact that as passive euthanasia has been
allowed, similarly active euthanasia must also be allowed. A patient will wish to end his
life only in cases of excessive agony and would prefer to die a painless death rather
than living a miserable life with that agony and suffering. Thus, from a moral point of
view it will be better to allow the patient die painlessly when in any case he knows that
he is going to die because of that terminal illness.
6. Its aim is altruistic and beneficial as it is an act of painlessly putting to death to those
persons who are suffering from painful and incurable diseases. So, the motive behind
this is to help rather than harm.
7. It not only relives the unbearable pain of a patient but also relieves the relatives of a
patient from the mental agony.
8. A point which is often raised against the supporters of euthanasia is that if such right
will be granted to the terminally ill patients then there will be chances of abusing it. But
the supporters argue that every right involves a risk of being abused but that doesnt
mean that the right itself should be denied to the people. We should rather look at the
brighter side of it than thinking of it being abused.
NEW DIMENSION IN INDIAN HISTORY- ARUNAs CASE
Aruna Shanbaug, who was working as a nurse at KEM Hospital, was assaulted on the
night of November 27, 1973 by a ward boy. He sodomised Aruna after strangling her
with a dog chain. The attack left Aruna blind, paralysed and speechless and she went
into a coma from which she has never come out. She is cared for by KEM hospital
nurses and doctors. The woman does not want to live any more. The doctors have told
her that there is no chance of any improvement in her state. Her next friend (a legal
term used for a person speaking on behalf of someone who is incapacitated) describes
Shanbaug: her bones are brittle. Her skin is like Paper Mache stretched over a
skeleton. Her wrists are twisted inwards; her fingers are bent and fisted towards her
palms, resulting in growing nails tearing into the flesh very often. Her teeth are decayed
and giving her immense pain. Food is completely mashed and given to her in semisolid
form. She chokes on liquids and is in a persistent vegetative state. So, she, through her
next friend Pinki Virani, decided to move the SC with a plea to direct the KEM Hospital
not to force feed her. And on 16th December 2009, the Supreme Court of India admitted
the womans plea to end her life. The Supreme Court bench compromising Chief Justice
K G Balakrishnan and Justices A K Ganguly and B S Chauhan agreed to examine the
merits of the petition and sought responses from the Union Government, Commissioner
of Mumbai Police and Dean of KEM Hospital.
On 24th January 2011, the Supreme Court of India responded to the plea for euthanasia

filed by Aruna's friend journalist Pinki Virani, by setting up a medical panel to examine
her. The three-member medical committee subsequently set up under the Supreme
Court's directive, checked upon Aruna and concluded that she met "most of the criteria
of being in a permanent vegetative state". However, it turned down the mercy killing
petition on 7th March, 2011. The court, in its landmark judgement, however allowed
passive euthanasia in India. While rejecting Pinki Virani's plea for Aruna Shanbaug's
euthanasia, the court laid out guidelines for passive euthanasia. According to these
guidelines, passive euthanasia involves the withdrawing of treatment or food that would
allow the patient to live.
Ms Shanbaug has, however, changed forever India's approach to the contentious issue
of euthanasia. The verdict on her case today allows passive euthanasia contingent upon
circumstances. So other Indians can now argue in court for the right to withhold medical
treatment - take a patient off a ventilator, for example, in the case of an irreversible
coma. Today's judgement makes it clear that passive euthanasia will "only be allowed in
cases where the person is in persistent vegetative state or terminally ill."
Recently in November 2007, a member of Indian parliament who belongs to the
Communist Party of India introduced a bill to legalize euthanasia to the Lok Sabha, the
lower house of representatives in the Indian parliament. C.K. Chandrappan, a
representative from Trichur, Kerala, introduced a Euthanasia Permission and Regulation
Bill that would allow the legal killing of any patient who is bedridden or deemed
incurable. The legislation would also permit any person who cannot carry out daily
chores without assistance to be euthanized.
"If there is no hope of recovery for a patient, it is only humane to allow him to put an
end to his pain and agony in a dignified manner," said Dr. B. K. Rao, chairman of Sir
Ganga Ram Hospital in New Delhi. "If it is established that the treatment is proving to be
futile, euthanasia is a practical option for lessening the misery of patients."
Euthanasia is totally different from suicide and homicide. Under the Indian penal code,
attempt to commit suicide is punishable under section 309 of IPC and also abetment to
suicide is punishable under section 306 of IPC. A person commits suicide for various
reasons like marital discord, dejection of love, failure in the examination, unemployment
etc. but in euthanasia these reasons are not present. Euthanasia means putting a
person to painless death in case of incurable diseases or when life became purposeless
or hopeless as a result of mental or physical handicap. It is also differs from homicide. In
murder, the murderer has the intention to cause harm or cause death in his mind. But in
euthanasia although there is an intention to cause death, such intention is in good faith.
A doctor apply euthanasia when the patient, suffering from a terminal disease, is in an
irremediable conditions or has no chance to recover or survival as he suffering from a
painful life or the patient has been in coma for 20/30 years like Aruna Shanbaug.
Therefore it is suggested that penal provision regarding attempts to commit suicide and
abetment to suicide should be preserved in the interests of the society as a general rule
but euthanasia (voluntary) should be permitted in certain circumstances as an

exception to the general rule. Thus Indian Parliament should enact a law regarding
euthanasia which enables a doctor to end the painful life of a patient suffering from an
incurable disease with the consent of the patient. Parliament should lay down some
circumstances under which euthanasia will be lawful as bellow;
A) consent of the patient must be obtained,
B) Failure of all medical treatments or when the patient, suffering from a terminal
disease, is in an irremediable conditions or has no chance to recover or survival as he
suffering from a painful life or the patient has been in coma for 20/30 years,
C) The economic or financial condition of the patient or his family is very low,
D) Intention of the doctor must not be to cause harm,
E) Proper safeguard must be taken to avoid abuse of it by doctors,
F) Any other circumstances relevant to the particular case
Thus, Euthanasia could be legalized, but the laws would have to be very stringent.
Every case will have to be carefully monitored taking into consideration the point of
views of the patient, the relatives and the doctors. But whether Indian society is mature
enough to face this, as it is a matter of life and death, is yet to be seen.
If we carefully examine the opposition to the legalization of euthanasia, we can
conclude that the most important point that the opponents raise is that it will lead to its
misuse by the doctors. Thus, it is submitted that when a patient or his relatives can
willingly put his life in the hands of the doctor trusting him, then why cant a doctor be
given such discretion to decide what will be in favour of his patient. Another doubt that
is often raised is that if the doctors will be given discretion to practice voluntary
euthanasia then surely it will gradually lead to asking for involuntary or non-voluntary
euthanasia. But it is humbly submitted that a separate legislation should be made
allowing only voluntary euthanasia and not involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia. As
has already been pointed out earlier, we also have to keep in mind the limited medical
facilities available in India and the number of patients. This question still lies open that
who should be provided with those facilities; a terminally ill patient or to the patient who
has fair chances of recovery. As the patient himself out of his pain and agony is asking
for death, doctor should not increasing that pain of his should allow euthanasia. It has
been ruled in the Gian Kaur case that Article 21 does not include right to die by the
Supreme Court. But one may try to read it as is evident in the rights of privacy,
autonomy and self-determination, which is what has been done by the Courts of United
State and England. Thus, we can see that as the said right has been included in the
ambit of Article 21, so this can also be included in Article 21. This question was not
raised in the case earlier. Again the point that remains unanswered is regarding the
abuse of this right by the doctors. But relevant safeguards can be put on this right and
thus its abuse can be avoided. One of the safeguards can be that a proper quasi-judicial

authority having a proper knowledge in the medical field can be appointed to look into
the request of the patient and the steps taken by the doctor. To make it more full proof
some two or three assistant officials including one from the legal field can also be
appointed. This will avoid any abuse of this right granted to the terminally ill patients.
Here, we have to regard the painful situation in which the patient is and top priority
should be lessening his pain. Now when we already know that he is anyways going to
die today or tomorrow and he himself is asking for death, there is no point that he
should be denied with this right of at least leading a life with minimum dignity and
willingly. Otherwise his life will be no better in that situation. Thus, considering the
financial and medical facilities also, the question still lies open that what will be betterallowing euthanasia or not allowing euthanasia.
**************************
1) Rattan Singh, Right to life and personal liberty: journal of legal studies.
2) J.N Sharma, Right to die in terminally ill state: A plea to legalize euthanasia in Law
journal, Maharshi Dayanand University.
3) Dr. S.S. Jaswal and Subhash C. Baseen, Protection of life vis a vis Extinction of life in
Civil and Military Law Journal.
4) Dr. J.N Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India, 2008 45th edition.
5) Mohita and Aman Chhibber, Euthanasia and Human Rights:
http://www.legalserviceindia.com visited on 25th September.
6) http://www.euthanasia.com/ visited on 25th September.
7) http://www.lifesitenews.com visited on 25th Seotember.
8) M.S Dubal vs State of Maharastra, CrLJ 549 AIR 1987
9) Chenna Jagadeeswar vs State of A.P, CrLJ 549 AIR 1988
10) P.Rathinam vs Union of India, 3 scc 394, AIR 1994
11) Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab, 2 scc 648, AIR 1996
12) Dhananjoy Mahapatra in the Times of India, Kolkata-Thursday, 17th December,
2009.
13) http://www.ndtv.com/article/
14) http://en.wikipedia.org
AIR 1987
AIR 1988
AIR 1994
AIR 1996
The Constitutional Law of India by Dr. J.N Pandey; 45th Edition, page no- 224
http://www.euthanasia.com
Right to life and personal liberty: Some arguments with special reference to euthanasia
by Ratttan Singh in Journal of the legal studies, page no-81
John Keown in Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an arguments against legalisation,
page no-11
Dr.S.S Jaswal and Subhash C. Baseen in Protection of life vis--vis Extinction of life: Civil
and Military law Journal, Page no-87
Rattan Singh in Right to life and personal liberty: Some arguments with special
reference to Euthanasia in Journal of legal studies; page no-83
Rattan Singh in Right to life and personal liberty: Some arguments with special
reference to Euthanasia in Journal of legal studies; page no-84

Dr.S.S Jaswal and Subhash C. Baseen in Protection of life vis--vis Extinction of life: Civil
and Military law Journal, Page no-88
J.N sharma in law journal, Maharshi Dayanand University
Dr.S.S Jaswal and Subhash C. Baseen in Protection of life vis--vis Extinction of life: Civil
and Military law Journal, Page no-90
Ibid
Ibid; page no-89
Rattan Singh in Right to life and personal liberty: Some arguments with special
reference to Euthanasia in Journal of legal studies; page no-87
AIR 1995
Ibid; page no-84
Id 17
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aruna_Shanbaug_case
Ibid
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/aruna-shanbaug-case-supreme-cou