The right to life is a part of the basic human rights enshrined in the Constitution of India as well as the various international instruments dealing with human rights. The law recognises the right to life as a very basic and non encroachable right of any human being.
Under the Constitution of India, Article 21 provides that:
No person shall be deprieved of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
It means that for the deprivation of life and personal liberty, there should have been a law and a procedure established under it. The procedure should be fair, just and reasonable. Any arbitrary procedure cannot be justified for the deprivation of life and personal liberty. This right has been guaranteed to not only the citizens of India but to foreigners as well.
By its various decisions, the Supreme Court has extended the definition of right to life to right to a dignified life, declaring that ‘life’ does not mean a mere animal existence but something more. It has included the right to shelter[1], right to privacy[2], right to livelihood[3], right to pollution free environment[4], right to reputation, right to medical aid[6], right to education[7] and so on under the ambit of Article 21. A man is entitled not only to breathe but to lead a fulfilling productive life.
In the case of Gian Kaur v State of Punjab[8], it has been held that the right to life as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be interpreted to include the right to put an end to life by any unnatural method. There is no right to die under Article 21.
Suicide: Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, makes an attempt to suicide punishable under the law. Suicide is a voluntary act to terminate one’s life. It is an act of bringing about an unnatural end to one’s own life. The Court has said that suicide is socially wrong and it is the duty of the State to prevent the same. The attempt to suicide has been made punishable in order to make an example of the person for others who may be developing a similar attitude towards life and death. The said section is constitutionally valid under the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court has held it reasonable in the case of Gian Kaur.
The question whether Article 21 includes right to die or not first came into consideration in the case State of Maharashtra v. Maruti Shripathi Dubal[9] . 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[10] where it was concluded by the Court that “right to live of which Article 21 speaks of can be said to bring in its trail the right not to live a forced life”. However in the case Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[11] 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.
The Law Commission of India in its 42nd Report (1971) has recommended for the deletion of Section 309, IPC. However, no action has been taken on the same till date.
Euthanasia: Euthanasia or mercy killing means terminating the life of a terminally ill person by another to free him from the pain and sufferings. Euthanasia has been described as a method of bringing about an end to life so as to prevent the patient from suffering more pain. Euthanasia can be categorised as following:
Based on consent: Voluntary and involuntary
Voluntary euthanasia involves the consent of the patient while in the case of involuntary euthanasia, consent of the next best friend is provided.
Based on method: Active and passive
Active euthanasia involves aiding death by providing poisons or any other method for terminating the life. It is an active method of administering drugs or means bringing about the death of the person involved.
Passive euthanasia involves hastening death by removing the terminally ill patient from the life support system, stopping feeding or medication, not delivering cardio- pulmonary resuscitation and so on and letting death take place naturally.
Euthanasia has been a debated topic as the person who is terminally ill, no longer leads a dignified life or a life that can be productive in any fashion. There is more or less a vegetative existence bound to machines at the mercy of others instead of a dignified human life and this life could hardly be covered under the ambit of Article 21. Euthanasia is often confused with suicide as in this case as well, the person demands to terminate his life because of his condition and the death is brought about not in the natural, timely manner but by some external, human interference. Euthanasia and Suicide were clearly defined in the case of Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India[12], where Justice Lodha stated- “Suicide by its very nature is an act of self-killing or self-destruction, an act of terminating one’s own act and without the aid or assistance of any other human agency while Euthanasia or mercy killing on the other hand implies the intervention of other human agency to end the life. Mercy killing is therefore not suicide and an attempt at mercy killing is not covered by the provisions of Section 309. The two concepts are both factually and legally distinct. Euthanasia or mercy killing is nothing but homicide whatever the circumstances in which it is performed.” In the case of Gian Kaur[13], the Apex Court distinguished between suicide and euthanasia by saying that in case of euthanasia, the patient is terminally ill and the process of death has already commenced and it is only hastened to avoid long sufferings.
On the other hand, however, the courts have been wary of the fact that relatives may try to hasten the death of the terminally ill patient, specially the one who cannot give his own consent, to get inheritance.
For a long time, the courts have been continuously rejecting all pleas of euthanasia citing legal, moral and ethical reasons. However, it has been raised time and again in the court about what is the actual state of patients who are brain dead or those who are permanently bound on life support system. The advocates of euthanasia state that it prevents the prolonged sufferings of the terminally ill patient and is in a manner morally right to end a life of suffering. They claim that by bringing about an early death, the pain and sufferings are reduced both of the person who is in a vegetative state surviving on a life support as well as of their near relatives and friends who undergo mental and emotional trauma, watching their loved one suffer.
However, euthanasia has been criticized on a number of social, theological, moral and ethical grounds.
Euthanasia and religious grounds:
1. Hinduism: There are two views in Hinduism, one considers it a good deed to terminate a person’s sufferings while the other states that by bringing about death, one interferes with the normal cycle of life and rebirth.
2. Islam: Under Islamic doctrine, human life is sacred and none but God has right over it and hence, suicide is against religion and by extension so is euthanasia.
3. Christianity: Christianity also forbids suicide and all forms of taking of human life.
4. Sikhism: Sikhism rejects suicide as interference with God’s plan.
Euthanasia and socio-economic grounds:
In a country like India, where the elder members of the family are considered a burden, the greedy relatives may get a doctor to say that euthanasia is the only way left for them. Euthanasia might be misused for ending the lives of relatives in order to get inheritance and by incidence raising the crime rate in the country.
Euthanasia and law
In India, euthanasia is absolutely illegal. If a doctor tries to kill a patient, the case will surely fall under Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, but this is only so in the case of voluntary euthanasia in which such cases will fall under the exception 5 to section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and thus the doctor will be held liable under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Cases of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia would be struck by proviso one to Section 92 of the IPC and thus be rendered illegal.
Position in other countries:
Euthanasia has been first legalised in 2002 by Netherlands and Belgium.
The United States of America considers euthanasia illegal, though the doctor supervising it is not held criminally liable.
In Canada, patients can refuse life support but they cannot ask for active euthanasia or physician assisted suicide.
In Switzerland, euthanasia is illegal though physician assisted suicide is legal.
Position in India:
In the Gian Kaur case[14], the Apex Court laid down that euthanasia can be permitted only through legislation. In 2005, the then law minister H R Bhardwaj agreed that a framework was needed for withdrawal of life support to dying patients and entrusts the Law Commission to come out with a legal paper. In 2006, the Law Commission suggested a draft bill on passive euthanasia. It said that pleas must be made to the High Court which should decide expeditiously after expert opinion.
So, recently, in the case of Aruna Shanbaug represented by Pinki Virani, the Apex Court has, while rejecting the plea of euthanasia for Aruna, has however, allowed passive euthanasia for terminally ill patients, who cannot be, under any circumstances, with all medical advances, cured of their ailment and be made healthy. The court has ruled that passive euthanasia can be given only when the patient is kept alive only mechanically, when not only the consciousness is lost but the person is able to sustain only involuntary functioning through machines. Further, there is no possibility of the patient ever being able to come out of this condition and if there has been no alteration in the patient’s condition for at least a few years. However, the Honourable Court has pointed out that such an order can be given only by the High Court after consulting with medical practitioners on the application filed by the near relatives or next friend or doctors/hospital staff praying for permission to withdraw life support. The High Court should, however, exercise caution while giving such an order to prevent greedy relatives or partners or any other party from hastening the death of the person. When such a plea is filed, the Chief Justice of the High Court should constitute a Bench of at least two Judges and the Bench should seek opinion of a committee of 3 reputed doctors, preferably, a neurologist, a psychiatrist and a physician. The High Court should hear near relatives and make an expeditious decision. The Apex Court has further stated that the procedure laid down by it will hold good till Parliament enacts a law to deal with the issue.
However, the Court has pointed out that active euthanasia like injecting a lethal drug to end the life of a terminally ill patient is illegal.
While dealing with euthanasia in Aruna’s case, the Court has further asked the Parliament to scrape the provisions of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, by saying that the person attempting suicide does so in a state of depression and needs help instead of being punished.
[1] Chameli Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1996 SC 1051
[2] Khadak Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1963 SC 1295
[3] Olga tellis v Bombay Municipal Corp AIR 1986 SC 180
[4] Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420
[6] Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti v State of West Bengal AIR 1996 SC 2426
[7] Unni Krishnan v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 2178
[8] (1996)2 SCC 648
[9] AIR 1997 SC 411
[10] AIR 1994 SC 1844
[11] AIR 1996 SC 946
[12] 1994 SC
[13] AIR 1996 SC 946
[14] AIR 1996 SC 946
No comments:
Post a Comment