Euthanasia is the practice of ending a life in a manner that relieves pain and suffering. Euthanasia is classified into three types- voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary. As the meaning states, when euthanasia is conducted with the consent of the patient, it is termed voluntary euthanasia. Similarly, when it is conducted against the will of the patient, it is termed involuntary euthanasia. In a case where the patient is either in a vegetative state or coma and is unable to offer consent, it is called non-voluntary euthanasia. These three types are further divided into their active and passive forms. Passive euthanasia is the withholding of common treatments which are necessary to continue living. This can include stopping the life-sustaining medication, turning off the respiratory system or letting the patient die due to starvation or dehydration. On the other hand, active euthanasia is the deliberate use of lethal substances that leads to the instant death of the patient.

For many years the Indian parliament has stayed silent on implementing the practice of euthanasia. However, the Supreme court passed a judgment legalising passive euthanasia in wake of the Aruna Shanbaug case on 7^th March 2011. This decision was made as part of the verdict in a case of sexual assault, which blinded the victim and left her brain dead, paralysed and in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for 42 years . In the absence of laws made by the parliament, the courts state that their decisions become law of the land until the parliament enacts a suitable law. Therefore, passive euthanasia can be followed in India along with a few guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court whereas active euthanasia continues to remain illegal. The controversial question arises on whether euthanasia should be legalised in India. 

The existing guidelines of euthanasia as laid down by the Supreme Court are as follows

1. The decision of discontinuing life support can be taken by either the parents, spouse or any other close relative. In their absence, any person acting as a next friend or the doctor involved can take part in decision making. The supreme court specified that the patient’s best interest must be kept in mind during the entire process.
2. The decision requires approval from the concerned High Court once it has been made.
3. When this application is filed, the Chief Justice of the High Court should constitute a bench of two judges that will decide whether the approval will be granted. The bench is further required to nominate three doctors who will report the condition of the patient after which the High Court will announce themselves its verdict.
4. The apex court has also permitted the drafting of a ‘living will’, specifying that a patient does not wish to be put on life support if they slip into an incurable coma.

While passive euthanasia has received acceptance under exceptional circumstances, the debate still pertains to the active form. Active euthanasia involves the use of medicine to end someone’s life which is viewed as a criminal offence.Some consider euthanasia as more of a right to kill than a right to die. Therefore, they believe that if Euthanasia is granted, the provision will be heavily abused and misused. However, fear of misuse should not deny access to the right altogether. Those in favour of euthanasia argue that not allowing it would be a negation of their human rights and dignity. Consequently, the idea of relieving oneself from suffering is more important than preserving life. Pro-euthanasia activists have pointed out that in countries like Netherlands and Belgium, legalising euthanasia has not shown any problematic outcomes.When the Indian Parliament does not consider suicide a punishable offence, I believe taking charge of one’s last days should also not be considered a crime. Every individual should be allowed to choose their way of life and death. 

Therefore, the best solution to the abuse of Euthanasia is by legalising its voluntary form (active and passive) and prohibiting the non voluntary and involuntary forms. In addition, revision of the existing guidelines can help prevent any ambiguity and misuse of the law. Allowing only voluntary forms of euthanasia gives full control to each individual without hurting any religious sentiments. It will also reduce the ethical burden off the physicians’ shoulders by allowing patients to decide their fate themselves. 

Aishwarya Says:

I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.

If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.

Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter  Youtube and Instagram.

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com

We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.