In the complex landscape of Indian law, the debate around euthanasia—especially passive euthanasia—strikes at the heart of our understanding of life and death. The central question revolves around whether passive euthanasia is legal in India, and if it is, how it aligns with or infringes upon Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the "right to life."
Is Passive Euthanasia Legal in India?
Yes, passive euthanasia is legal in India, but its legality comes with stringent conditions. The landmark judgment in Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018) legalized passive euthanasia, allowing the withdrawal of life support systems for patients in a permanent vegetative state or those with terminal illnesses under strict guidelines. This ruling was hailed as a progressive step, acknowledging an individual’s right to die with dignity, which the court considered an extension of Article 21.
However, while the Supreme Court recognized this right, it also imposed stringent safeguards. The decision to withdraw life support must be approved by a medical board, and the patient's prior consent, either through a living will or an advance directive, is necessary. In the absence of such directives, family members can request the withdrawal, but only after a thorough legal and medical review.
The Right to Life: Beyond Mere Existence
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures the right to life and personal liberty. Over the years, the judiciary has expanded the scope of this right, declaring that it encompasses the right to live with dignity, not merely to exist. In Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981), the Supreme Court stated that the right to life is not just about physical survival but includes the right to live with human dignity.
This broad interpretation is crucial when discussing passive euthanasia. Terminal illnesses like advanced cancer, ALS, or certain neurodegenerative disorders may not have a cure, and while they do not necessarily pose an immediate threat to life, they often result in prolonged suffering. Patients may endure excruciating pain, loss of bodily functions, and a diminished quality of life, where each day becomes a battle not just against the illness but against a life that feels more like a burden.
In such cases, the right to life should logically extend to the right to die with dignity. Yet, the legal framework surrounding passive euthanasia seems to both safeguard and infringe upon this right.
The Paradox: Safeguarding Article 21 While Infringing Upon It
While the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment was a step towards safeguarding Article 21 by allowing individuals to make end-of-life decisions, it also presents a paradox. The stringent conditions for passive euthanasia—such as the requirement for a living will or approval from a medical board—can be seen as infringing upon the very right it aims to protect.
Consider the case of Aruna Shanbaug, whose story became a focal point in the euthanasia debate in India. Shanbaug, a nurse, was brutally assaulted and left in a vegetative state for over four decades. Her friend and journalist, Pinki Virani, petitioned the Supreme Court to allow euthanasia. However, the court rejected the plea, ruling instead that passive euthanasia could be legalized in certain situations.
Aruna was kept alive, not through a living will or her consent, but because the court deemed it necessary under the then-existing legal framework. She eventually passed away in 2015 due to pneumonia, after living a life devoid of consciousness and dignity for 42 years.This case underscores the tension between the legal safeguards meant to protect life and the potential infringement on an individual's right to choose a dignified death.
For those suffering from terminal illnesses, where there is no cure and no clear timeline for how long the suffering will last, the right to life can feel more like a punishment than a protection.
Conclusion
A Need for Evolving Legal UnderstandingThe legalization of passive euthanasia in India is a recognition of the need to respect individual autonomy and dignity at the end of life. However, the current legal framework, with its stringent safeguards, may not fully address the complexities of each individual case. While it aims to safeguard Article 21, it can also infringe upon the very right it seeks to protect.As our understanding of life, dignity, and suffering evolves, so too must our laws. The right to life, as enshrined in Article 21, should encompass the right to live with dignity and, when life becomes synonymous with suffering, the right to die with dignity. The law should recognize that life is more than mere existence—it is about quality, autonomy, and the ability to make choices, even when those choices pertain to death.
Post a Comment