EUTHANASIA: AN ENSUING DEBATE

CHAPTER – I
INTRODUCTION
 Introduction
Euthanasia is related to suicide because people choose how and when a human life should end,
either their own or someone else who is unable to make the choice.

Difference between euthanasia and suicide: Euthanasia involves more than 1 person. Someone else
is needed to perform the killing, provide drugs, or withhold life-saving treatment because someone
is unable to commit suicide on their own.

Voluntary Euthanasia: “Assisted suicide”: Someone chooses to end their life but needs help to
commit suicide.

Involuntary euthanasia: Other people decide it is best if someone’s life ends, because s/he can not
make that decision. E.g. they have been in a coma for a very long time.

Active euthanasia: Action is taken to bring a life to an end, e.g. a lethal dose of drugs is given.

Passive euthanasia: Decision is made to stop giving treatment, even though death will result. This
happens often in hospitals. Many do not accept this as euthanasia, because all you’re doing is letting
nature take its course.
 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
The aim of the present research is comprehension and analysis of the criminal
justice, criminological as well as medical and biological issues of euthanasia;
the proposal of ways to solve the identified problems, as well as proposal of
appropriate legal regulation model of euthanasia.
In order to achieve the formulated aim it is necessary to complete a number of
basic tasks:
1. to study the theoretical basis of the concept of euthanasia;
2. to identify and analyse the forms of euthanasia;
3. to conduct an analysis of the theoretical issue of the right to life;
4. to define the criminal justice characteristics of the killing at a victim’s
request;
5. to distinguish euthanasia from homicide and similar compositions;
6. to disclose the cause and circumstances of the killing at a person’s
request and to elaborate tools for the prophylaxis and prevention of
euthanasia;
7. to characterize peculiarities of the legal regulation of euthanasia in
foreign countries.
The object of the research is a human life as a certain social value. The
subject of the researches the phenomenon of euthanasia in criminal legal,
criminological and medical - biological aspect.
 HYPOTHESIS
The primary objective is to find out:
Firstly, that the concept of euthanasia is morally
acceptable to the society .no religious books permit the
act of euthanasia, rather they term it as killing of human
being which is a sin and it should be punishable, no
matter, in whatever circumstances it is done.
Secondly, that whether right to life also include right to
die under article 21 of the constitution, whether right to
demand death also included under right to life, should the
operation of section 309 Indian Penal Code be
decriminalised.
Lastly, that the legalisation of euthanasia, will it bring
any kind of fear for the society will it effect our moral
and values. Religion will impact on the way the people
answer the question on euthanasia.
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Following question arisen in the present study

1) Should terminally ill patients have human rights like other human beings?

2) Whether right to life also include right to die?

3) Whether the operation of section 309 of Indian Penal Code is decriminalised?

4) Whether decriminalisation of section 309 of Indian Penal Code gives a person right to demand to die?

5) Is it a violation of human right of a person and of his right to life and personal liberty under article 21 of

the constitution?

6) Whether euthanasia should be legalised and to what extent?

7) Whether legalisation of euthanasia will be a fear for the society that it will be abused?

8) Whether euthanasia should only be allowed in rarest of rarest case?

9) Whether our religion allows us to kill anyone who is in deep trauma?

10)Whether legalisation of euthanasia will change the mindset of the people and will it become a reason in

future for depleting moral values from the society?

 CHAPTER – II
INTERNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVE ON LEGAL
STATUS OF EUTHANASIA
In the last few decades, many countries have
grappled with the dilemmas associated with
advanced technology, greater life expectancy,
and the difficulties that are associated with
unbearable suffering. Every human being has a
right to life, and a number of international
human rights instruments assert this right to life.
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights
(1948), the United Nations Charter (1945),
European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom
(1950), American Convention on Human Rights
(1969) and the African Charter on Human and
Peoples Rights (1981) are some of the
instruments which explicitly and implicitly
prohibit the unlawful taking of life.
GLOBAL TRENDS IN EUTHANASIA
• NETHERLAND
• THE UNITED STATES
• UNITED KINGDOM
• CANADA
• BELGIUM
• SWITZERLAND
• FRANCE
• AUSTRALIA
 CHAPTER – III
EUTHANASIA IN INDIA
Euthanasia is one of those subjects of human concern which in
spite of an endless debate, has not and probably cannot yield a
unanimous decision. To permit or not to permit Euthanasia
has remained an enigma the world over. The legal system of
India cannot and should not be studied in isolation. India has
drawn its constitution from the constitution of various
countries and the courts have time and again referred to
various decisions. Several questions arise in this grey area of
law.
• INDIAN CONSTITUTION AND RIGHT TO LIFE
• BYPASSING OF LEGAL PROVISION BY ETHICAL
AND RELIGIOUS ISSUES
• LEGALISING MERCY KILLING: A CONTROVERSY
ARGUMENTS FOR LEGALISING EUTHANASIA

• Article 21

• Right to privacy

• Right to Autonomy

• Proper legal safeguards can minimize misuse of the Right

• Problem regarding misuse of the Right to Die to Euthanasia

SOME LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

• 'Slippery-Slope' Argument

• Legal Euthanasia Sends out the Wrong Message

• Right to Live: Ambit and Scope

• Right to Die

• Reduction of Suffering
 CHAPTER – IV
JUDICIAL APPROACH
 K. Ventakesh case, AIR 1988 SC 344
K. Ventakesh case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court was confronted with a very pathetic case of a terminally ill boy of

25 years seeking court's permission to a peaceful end, so that he could donate his organs to someone needy before he is

finally pronounced dead. Venkatesh's muscles from his legs to neck have stopped functioning and the life support

system let him breathe. Doctors say that he won't survive once he is taken off the ventilator. The doctors at the hospital

have refused to entertain Venkatesh's appeal for 'mercy killing' for it is illegal to take a patient who is alive off life

support. Doctors at the hospital reported that Venkatesh developed serious chest infection besides dystrophy. His days

were numbered but he wants to die before his organs are infected. After his death organs will be in no shape for

harvesting and cannot be used for any person.

The petition was rejected by the Honourable High Court. The Honourable High Court turned down the humanitarian

appeal of an ailing man on deathbed, who wanted to donate his organs to someone needy before he could die. With due

respect, it is submitted that the Honourable Court could have taken a pragmatic view and applied the law keeping in

view the objective and purpose for which the request was made which was obviously to save a human life instead of

applying the dead letter of law literally. No doubt, 'right to life' is an absolute right and non-negotiable, but in the

particular case the request was made to save the 'right of life' of someone who is on deathbed by giving a chance to get

his defunct organs replaced from Venkatesh's organs, whose days were numbered as already medically pronounced by

the doctors. In such a case Venkatesh was having the most pious objective of igniting the candle in the life of someone
 Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, AIR 2011 SC 1290.
Aruna Shanbaug case, in a breakthrough ruling, India joins a handful of countries to legalise “passive

euthanasia.” In this case the Supreme Court has ruled for the first time that life support can be removed for some

terminally ill patients in “exceptional circumstances.” However, the women who started it all was not allowed

mercy killing. Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse working at the King Edward Memorial (KEM) Hospital in Mumbai

on 27 November 1973 when she was strangled and sodomized by Sohanlal Walmiki, a sweeper. During the attack

she was strangled with a chain, and the deprivation of oxygen has left her in a vegetative state ever since. She has

been treated at KEM since the incident and is kept alive by feeding tube. On behalf of Aruna, her friend Pinki

Virani, a social activist, filed a petition in the Supreme Court arguing that the “continued existence of Aruna is in

violation of her right to live in dignity.” The Supreme Court praised Ms Virani's concern, but ruled that her

relationship with the patient does not give her right to petition on Ms Shanbaug's ,behalf for a mercy killing.. In

this landmark case, where the court had sought medical reports from Ms Shanbaug's hospital in Mumbai along

with the Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai's medical fraternity have celebrated the decision to keep the former

nurse alive. In the highly complex ruling, the Supreme Court announced that doctors and nurses could petition to

withdraw life support to aid “passive euthanasia”. This is different from “active euthanasia” in which death is

caused by the use of lethal substances and which still remains illegal in India. Doctors in Mumbai have claimed

that they would not petition for passive euthanasia in Ms Shanbaug's case and maintained that she had a right to

live till she dies of natural causes.

With the direction of the Supreme Court in
‘Mandal Commission Case’ to the Central
Government and to all State Government to
specify the criteria for exclusion of ‘Creamy
Layer’, various legal and sociological issues
have arisen, which have been summarised for
the purpose of analysis as under:
• Whether it was right time to apply such a
concept to the ‘backward classes’ ?
• Whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
exceeded its Jurisdiction to give directions
in this regard ?
 CHAPTER – V
CONCLUSION AND
SUGGESTIONS
 CONCLUSION
Modern science with its development process has created many dilemmas for society. Man is
faced with the problem of choice. One such is mercy killing or Euthanasia. As debate goes on
between doctors, lawyers, society, philosophers and governments of the world as to whether
Euthanasia should be sanctioned or not, the religious traditions of the world can provide a ray of
hope in this matter. The Eastern religious traditions, with special reference to Hinduism and
Buddhism, are explored for this reason.

Euthanasia is a controversial subject, not only because there are many different moral dilemmas
associated with it, but also in what constitutes its definition. At the extreme ends of disagreement,
advocates say euthanasia, also known as physician aid in dying, or physician assisted suicide, is a
merciful method of death. At the other end are opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this
method as a form of murder. After the detail study of various states legislations and the detail
study of the Rati Ram' case and Gian Kaur' case, still the matter is a question of debate that
whether Euthanasia is a suicide or dignified end of life. Many state legalize Euthanasia but in the
high profile state as well as in India Euthanasia is not permitted even after their broader verdict
that right to life means dignified life and this right to life include dignified end of life too.
 SUGGESTIONS
• While taking ones life is not desirable , at least in some cases when there is need for an intervention for the good of the
patients and their relatives . in a corrupt country such as india all kinds of manipulations and foul plays can happen in
any system . so before making it legal it is of paramount importance to consider the legal, medical and social aspects of
euthanasia.

• uthanasia should be allowed legally in india subject to certain clauses . the clauses are needed to arrive at a practice
that is safe and free from the possibility of manipulation. Firstly, the patient should be suffering from an extremely bad,
rare , painful or unconscious condition which is incurable. Secondly, at least three specialist hospitals should certify
that the condition of the patient cannot live to normal life.

• Doctors judging the healt condition of the patient should have adequate experience and reputation.

• The case referred should be studied by an executive committee constituted by expert from the Indian Medical
Association, National Human Right Commission , National Commission for Women and alteast one retired judge of the
supreme court .

• The committee should consider aspects such as the patients age , family , social status, legal and financial
commitments, and health condition , and recommend . Whether to grant euthanasia or not. All this should come under
union ministry of law.
 SUGGESTIONS
•To prevent the abuse of euthanasia: A euthanasia request should
come from a patient suffering from unbearable pain from an
incurable condition, the physician must follow certain due care
criterion. He must
 be convinced that request was voluntary, well consider and
lasting
 be convinced that the patient was facing unremitting and
unbearable suffering.
 have informed the patient about his situation and prospects.
 have reached the firm conclusion with the patient that there was
no reasonable alternative solution .
•Mercy killing should be carried out with the written sanction of
three state recognized doctors certifying that the patient under
consideration is a fit case for euthanasia.
•Terminate life should be in a medically appropriate fashion .like that
the practice is to administer an injection to render the patient
comatose , followed by a second injection to stop heart.
THANKING YOU