Scribd
Upload
210 views3 pages

Page 1-Euthanasia Debate: Arguments in Favour For Euthanasia

The document discusses arguments for and against euthanasia. Proponents of euthanasia argue that individuals have a right to self-determination over their own lives and deaths. They also argue that euthanasia may be preferable to allowing continued suffering and that there is no substantive difference between passive and active euthanasia. Supporters further argue that legalizing euthanasia in countries like the Netherlands and Belgium has not led to unacceptable consequences. In India, passive euthanasia is legal and allows for the withdrawal of life support from patients in a permanent vegetative state, as determined by a landmark Supreme Court case involving Aruna Shanbaug.

Uploaded by

Victor Bose
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
210 views3 pages

Page 1-Euthanasia Debate: Arguments in Favour For Euthanasia

The document discusses arguments for and against euthanasia. Proponents of euthanasia argue that individuals have a right to self-determination over their own lives and deaths. They also argue that euthanasia may be preferable to allowing continued suffering and that there is no substantive difference between passive and active euthanasia. Supporters further argue that legalizing euthanasia in countries like the Netherlands and Belgium has not led to unacceptable consequences. In India, passive euthanasia is legal and allows for the withdrawal of life support from patients in a permanent vegetative state, as determined by a landmark Supreme Court case involving Aruna Shanbaug.

Uploaded by

Victor Bose
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Page 1-

Euthanasia debate: Arguments in favour for


Euthanasia
Historically, the euthanasia debate has tended to focus on a
number of key concerns. According to euthanasia opponent Ezekiel
Emanuel, proponents of euthanasia have presented four main
arguments:

1) that people have a right to self-determination, and thus should


be allowed to choose their own fate
2) assisting a subject to die might be a better choice than
requiring that they continue to suffer
3) the distinction between passive euthanasia, which is often
permitted, and active euthanasia, which is not substantive (or
that the underlying principle–the doctrine of double effect–is
unreasonable or unsound);
4) permitting euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable
consequences. Pro-euthanasia activists often point to
countries like the Netherlands and Belgium, and states like
Oregon, where euthanasia has been legalized, to argue that it
is mostly unproblematic.
5) Other arguments:
1. Constitution of India: ‘Right to life’ is a natural right
embodied in Article 21 but euthanasia/suicide is an
unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore,
incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to
life’. It is the duty of the State to protect life and the
physician’s duty to provide care and not to harm
patients. Supreme Court in Gian Kaur Case 1996 has
held that the right to life under Article 21 does not include
the right to die.
6) Caregivers burden: Right-to-die‘ supporters argue that people
who have an incurable, degenerative, disabling or debilitating
condition should be allowed to die in dignity. This argument is
further defended for those, who have chronic debilitating
illness even though it is not terminal such as severe mental
illness. The majority of such petitions are filed by the sufferers
7) or family members or their caretakers. The caregiver’s burden
is huge and cuts across various domains such as financial,
emotional, time, physical, mental and social.
8) Refusing care: Right to refuse medical treatment is well
recognised in law, including medical treatment that sustains or
prolongs life. For example, a patient suffering from blood
cancer can refuse treatment or deny feeds through a
nasogastric tube. Recognition of the right to refuse treatment
gives a way for passive euthanasia.
9) Encouraging the organ transplantation: Euthanasia in
terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to advocate for
organ donation. This, in turn, will help many patients with
organ failure waiting for transplantation. Not only euthanasia
gives ‘Right to die‘ for the terminally ill, but also ‘Right to life‘
for the organ needy patients.

Euthanasia in India
Passive euthanasia is legal in India. On 7 March 2011, the
Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia by means of
the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative
state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case
involving Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent
Vegetative State (PVS) for 42 years until her death in 2015.

The Aruna Shanbaug Case


In March 2011, the Supreme Court of India passed a historic
judgement-law permitting Passive Euthanasia in the country. This
judgment was passed in the wake of Pinki Virani’s plea to the
highest court in December 2009 under the Constitutional provision
of “Next Friend”. It’s a landmark law which places the power of
choice in the hands of the individual, over government, medical or
religious control which sees all suffering as “destiny”. The Supreme
Court specified two irreversible conditions to permit Passive
Euthanasia Law in its 2011 Law:

 The brain-dead for whom the ventilator can be switched off.



 Page 3 -
 Those in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for whom the
feed can be tapered out and pain-managing palliatives be
added, according to laid-down international specifications.

The same judgement-law also asked for the scrapping of 309, the
code which penalises those who survive suicide-attempts. In
December 2014, the Government of India declared its intention to
do so.

You might also like