INTRODUCTION
Euthanasia can be defined as the painless inducement of a
quick death. It is the painless killing of a patient suffering from
an incurable and painful disease or in everlasting coma. As put
in by the supporters of euthanasia it is A mode or act of
inducing or permitting death painlessly as a relief from
suffering.
It takes into account factors like suffering and intention. Thus, it
can be defined as The intentional action of causing death to a
person using the least painful way so as to relieve them of their
suffering and pain caused from the medical condition from
which recovery is improbable.
TYPES OF EUTHANASIA
ON THE BASIS OF THE CONSENT OF THE PLAINTIFF
I. Voluntary euthanasia: When the patient himself
gives his assent to die.
II. Non-voluntary euthanasia: When the consent of
the patient is unavailable, that is, the patient is
unable to communicated due to vegetative state or is
a child suffering from an irrecoverable disease
III. Involuntary euthanasia: When euthanasia is
carried out against the wishes of the patient.
ON THE BASIS OF MODE
I. Active euthanasia: When the death is caused by
introducing a lethal substance in the body of the
sufferer, usually through injections, which leads to
complete arrest of the vital functions is active
euthanasia.
When this is with the help of physician, it is termed as
assisted suicide.
II. Passive euthanasia: When the death is caused by
removing the support mechanism of the patient,
namely antibiotics, heart-lung machine or food and
nutrition, and the patient dies due to the lack of the
necessities, it is termed as passive euthanasia.
HISTORICAL TIMELINE
5th Century B.C.-1st Century B.C.
Before the advent of Christianity, the ancient Greeks and
Romans had a liberal attitude towards euthanasia. There was a
support for voluntary death against prolonged suffering.
Physicians often complied with the request of their patients by
given them the poison required.
12th Century- 15th Century
The Christians believed that life is a gift from God and thus
ending it was like going against God. Thus, they were staunch
opponents of euthanasia as it violated Gods authority over life.
17th Century-19th Century
It was the time of renaissance in Europe where the writers
opposed the views of the Church and advocated the rights of an
individual to die. The movement, however, was short-lived as it
was suppressed by the Christians in Europe and America. An
act was passed in America, the first one of its kind, making
euthanasia illegal.
On the other hand, some scientists like Smauel Williams
propagated the use of analgesics like morphine which not only
relieved terminal pain, but were also used to intentionally end
the patients life.
20th Century- 21st Century
In 1915, in a hospital in Chicago, a boy was born whose body
was blue and badly deformed who could not survive without the
surgery. The Chief of staff, Dr. Harry J. Haiselden decided
against the surgery, allowing the newborn to die shortly. This
case was one of its kinds which paved way for euthanasia for
infants.
The current scenario is more or less the same as there is no
consensus as to the validity of euthanasia. Thus, there are
different laws and practices in different countries.
LEGALITY
Euthanasia has been a long-debated issue which still remains a
moot point.
The supporters believe that being a human, a person should
have the right to choose, as in whether to choose life or refuse
it if it is improbable that he will even get out of the painful
situation he is currently in. It is argued that it is better to be
relieved of the suffering by dying than spending rest of the life
like a living corpse and that it is human right to live with
dignity and there is no dignity when living is worse than death.
According to the advocates, it will be cruel and inhuman to
deny the right to die to a person for whom life becomes hell.
On the other hand, those against euthanasia believe that it is
no less than an attempt to suicide or even murder when
supported by doctors and the family of the patient. There is
never a need to resort to euthanasia where there is family
support as good palliative care is able to control physical,
psychological, social, spiritual and existential suffering, making
the life of the patient little easier. If that does not work out,
palliative sedatives are also administered sometimes which do
their job well. It is also argued that if legalised, it may be
misused by the people to take control of the property of a
terminally ill patient for instance and this will also lead to
increase in suicide rates when more vulnerable people opt for
it.
STATUS IN COUNTRIES
Voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia are allowed in most of
the countries but involuntary euthanasia has been declared
illegal by all.
As for active and passive euthanasia, there are different laws
in different countries.
CANADA
Active euthanasia has been declared illegal in Canada but
assisted suicide1 remains valid only for people above the age of
18 who are entitled to the Canadian health insurance policy2
and are terminally ill and the suffering is such that natural
death is reasonably foreseeable.
This landmark decision came in 2015-16 when the Supreme
Court of Canada unanimously declared that Canadian adults
who are mentally competent and suffering intolerably and
permanently have the right to a doctor's help in dying 3.
A parliamentary committee was set up to study the case in the
light of the ruling held by the Supreme Court. Thus, it
recommended that anyone experiencing intolerable suffering
should be allowed to undergo passive euthanasia.
1 Passive euthanasia
2 So as to prevent suicide tourism
3 Carter v Canada (AG)
Criticism: it allowed right to die in restrictive conditions by
allowing access only to those with terminal illnesses for whom
death is reasonably foreseeable. It was argued that the
government's assisted dying law is unconstitutional, as it does
not provide access to anybody suffering from a "grievous and
irremediable" condition, the definition used by the Supreme
Court of Canada.
JAPAN
There are no official laws relating to euthanasia in Japan nor
has the Supreme Court decided any such cases. Two cases, one
involving active euthanasia and the other one of passive
euthanasia were decided by the district courts which led to a
tentative legal framework for implementing euthanasia in
Japan.
Passive euthanasia:
1. The patient must be suffering from an incurable disease in
the later stages of which recoverability is improbable.
2. The patient must consent to it expressly prior to death.
This may be determined by will in case he/she is unable to
give consent. The family may give testimony pleading it.
3. The treatment must be stopped, that is, medicines,
nutrition, life support etc, must be withdrawn.
Active euthanasia:
1. Physical pain must be unbearable
2. Death must be inevitable and drawing near;
3. The consent of the patient is required; wills or family
consent cannot be accepted.
4. There must not be any other means of relieving pain.
There will also be bioethics SWAT teams to help the family
decide along with the doctors.
UNITED KINGDOM
Euthanasia is illegal throughout the U.K. Any person assisting it
can be convicted for attempt to suicide. Several attempts were
made by Lord Joffe to validate voluntary euthanasia but in vain.
On the contrary, in 1957, the court held that death through the
administration of lethal drugs to a patient, if the intention is
solely to alleviate pain, is not considered murder even if death
is a potential or even likely outcome.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Active euthanasia is illegal. The patient retains the right to
refuse treatment and opt for passive euthanasia. It is also
possible to withdraw life-supporting machinery in some
circumstances only by the consent of the patient or his legal
representative. This right is given only in the states of
Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California.
NETHERLANDS
It is one of the very first countries to legalise euthanasia. It was
held that the physician was not allowed to keep a patient alive
against his will. It was in 2002, that Netherlands passed a law
allowing active as well as passive euthanasia. This law contains
provisions as not to prosecute doctors who have committed
euthanasia in specific circumstances. It allows a person to end
their life in dignity after having received every available type of
palliative care.
INDIA
Passive euthanasia is allowed in India. It was legalised in 2011.
The Supreme Court held that life support to patients in a
permanent vegetative state 4
could be withdrawn subject to
some tests. Forms of active euthanasia, including
administration of lethal substances like poisons even though
under the supervision of physician has been declared as illegal.
EUTHANASIA AND SUICIDE
Suicide and euthanasia differ from each other in many ways.
Suicide as stated in Oxford Dictionary5 means the act of killing
yourself deliberately. So, it we can say that it is intentional
termination of ones life inducing by reasons like frustration,
failure, depression and so on. In Indian law intention is the basis
for penal liability. An act is not criminal act if it is committed or
omitted without the intention and law of crimes in India is
based on the famous Roman maxim, Actus non facit reum nisi
men sit rea. By applying this maxim, it can be stated that if
the person has given consent then accused should not be
liable, but Section 87 of the Indian Penal Code clearly lays down
that consent cannot be pleaded as a defence in case where the
consent is given to cause death or grievous hurt. The Bombay
4 Disorder of consciousness; there is brain damage and partial arousal and not
true awareness.
5 Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English. (2000). Sixth Edition;
Oxford University Press.
High Court in Maruti Shripati Dubal case6 has attempted to
make a distinction between suicide and euthanasia or mercy
killing. According to the court the suicide by its very nature is
an act of self killing or termination of ones own life by ones act
without assistance from others. But euthanasia means the
intervention of others human agency to end the life. Mercy
killing is nothing but a homicide, whatever is the circumstance
in which it is committed. In another case7 the Bombay High
Court also observed that suicide by its very nature is an act of
self killing or self destruction, an act of terminating ones own
act and without the aid and assistance of any other human
agency. Euthanasia or mercy killing on the other hand means
and implies the intervention of other human agency to end the
life. Mercy killing is thus not suicide. The two concepts are both
factually and legally distinct.
LEGAL ASPECTS OF EUTHANASIA IN INDIA
In India, euthanasia is undoubtedly illegal. Since in cases of
euthanasia or mercy killing there is an intention on the part of
the doctor to kill the patient, such cases would clearly fall under
clause first of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But
then the Exception 5 of this section can be applied and mercy
killer or doctor can be made accused for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, under Section 304. Also in India, Right to
Suicide is not an available Right. It is criminalised by Section
306(abetment of suicide) and 309(attempt to commit suicide).
Different perspectives and opinions are available by different
judgments on euthanasia by different cases. Some of which are
mentioned below:
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab8
6 Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharastra; 1987 Cri.L.J 743 (Bomb)
7 Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India; 1995 Cri.L.J 95 (Bomb)
Five judge bench of the well settled that the right to life
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include
the right to die. The Court held that Article 21 is a provision
guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty and by no
stretch of the imagination can extinction of life be read into it.
Section 309 of IPC has been held to be constitutionally valid but
the time has come when it should be deleted by Parliament as
it has become anachronistic. A person attempts suicide in a
depression, and hence he needs help, rather than punishment.
Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra9
The Bombay High Court examines the constitutional validity of
Section 309 and held that it is violative of Article 14 and 21 of
the Constitution. The Section was held to be discriminatory in
nature and also arbitrary and violated equality guaranteed by
Article 14. Article 21 was interpreted to include the right to die
or to take away ones life. Consequently it was held to be
violative of Article 21.
8 1996 (2) SCC 648 : AIR 1996 SC 946
9 1987 Cri.L.J 743 (Bom.)
