Sourish Pillai
Bennett University
BA-LLB 1st year, 2nd Sem
Solace in Death: Morality of Right to Die
Death
is the eternal truth of life, the knowledge that life on this earth is limited
is the reason why it is worth living. Humans are free to choose the path they
tread on in the course of their life; they must actively make decisions and
live with the consequences of them. The question then is, if people are free to
choose their way of life, why then can they not have the right to choose their
death. For centuries medical science has professed the doctrine of harming none
and saving as many as is possible. It would then certainly arise as a conundrum
to them when they find their patients seeking death.
Right
to die is a concept that believes that humans being sentient and rational, have
the right to both dictate their life as well as end it of their choosing.
Euthanasia is a Greek word meaning good death, and it is also the most debated
sector of the right to die. The two forms of euthanasia are active and passive,
inactive euthanasia, a person is killed as a consequence of injecting them with
a lethal dosage of a drug, while in passive euthanasia, a person is killed by
withholding life support systems. Another method or right to die is by
committing suicide.
Religious Perspective
In
India, the notion of the right to die is heavily frowned upon by religions like
Islam and Christianity. They believe that since life is given by God, it is
only, He who can take it away. Hinduism has varied views on the topic, with
some sects advocating that life should not be taken while some state that it
can be taken if it helps the person attain Moksha or liberation.
Jainism,
on the other hand, allows a person to die through fasting unto death, this
process is known as Santhara. These principles find their basis in the belief
that the death of the body is not the end of life, for the soul is eternal and
may reincarnate into a new body.
Medical Perspective
In
the medical world, the desire of anyone to die by committing suicide is seen as
a result of them ailing from mental illnesses. Research has found that people
suffering from depression, substance abuse and schizophrenia tend to be prone
to committing suicide. Medical practitioners and psychiatrists believe that for
euthanasia to be administered, the mental status of the person seeking such is
to be thoroughly ascertained. Psychiatry advocates that attempt to suicide are,
in fact, the patients seeking help. The primary argument against euthanasia is
that if accepted in society, it will lead to a lack of care for those suffering
and a system where people who have outlived their utility to society should be
disposed of.
Palliative
care is the type of care that provides relief and compassion to the patient, it
seeks to remove all distress. It is an anti-thesis of the right to die principle
propounding the idea that with intensive and creative care. The paradox lies in
the direct and indirect cause of euthanasia. It is much more ethically and
morally frowned upon when a person is killed via active euthanasia through
administering a lethal dose than with the withdrawal of life support.
Yet,
people fail to understand that both actions have the same result. The direct
and indirect involvement of another entity doesn’t make a difference in the
large scheme of things. The argument that nature should run its course is a
fallacy. It is, therefore, the human perception that governs the rights and
duties of people in society.
Legal Aspect
It
is stated that if the state were to legalize euthanasia, then it would at the
same time lose any initiative to maintain the public healthcare sector, which
is one of the pillars of social welfare. This projected harm to society is one
of the many reasons why there is apprehension about legalizing euthanasia in
India. Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the fundamental right to
life.
Section
309 of the Indian Penal Code states that a person who attempts to commit
suicide shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a year or be fined or
both. Supreme Court, in an earlier case of P. Ranthinam v. Union of India 1994,
had ruled out Section 309 of the IPC as it believed that punishing a person who
was about to kill themselves is irrational.
However,
this judgement was not upheld for long as in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996,
the Supreme Court, via a five-judge Constitutional Bench, held that the right
to life could not exist with the right to die as they are both polar concepts.
The
right to life contains the right to live with human dignity, which entails that
a person should live to the natural end of their life. The provision of death
with dignity is applicable in this but is not to be misconstrued as
extinguishing life before its natural end. This makes the right to life prevent
the right to die along with the right to kill.
All
of this changed with the case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India
2011 Ms Shanbaug had been in a vegetative state since being sexually assaulted
in 1973. The next friend of Ms Shanbaug petitioned the Court to direct the
hospital to allow the patient to die peacefully by withdrawing care.
Court-appointed doctors were sent to the hospital to examine the patient and
submit an assessment of her condition.
Despite
not allowing the withdrawal of care, the issue of passive euthanasia was
discussed at length by the Court. It concluded that passive euthanasia should
be allowed if doctors act on notified medical opinion and in the best interest
of the patient, life support is withdrawn. It also held that the Court is the
decider for what is in the best interest along with the High Courts of India.
The
right to die concept was cemented by the judgement in Common Cause v. Union of
India 2018. In this case, Common Cause, a registered society, petitioned the
Court, stating that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right within
the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The reasoning behind
their claims was the fact that patients who are kept alive using life support
systems and other forms of intensive care are, in fact, being subjected to
cruel treatments.
They
argued that these patients suffering from chronic ailments should be allowed to
die with dignity through them making this choice via living wills. A living
will is a document that concerns the patient’s preferences and choices for
healthcare and, as such, can also contain provisions for removal of life
support system resulting in passive euthanasia.
Due
to this, the case was referred to a five Judge Bench who concluded that the
right to die with dignity does come under fundamental rights. By stating their
medical preferences and directives through a living will, an individual asserts
that right to bodily integrity and self-determination, which is not dependent
on recognition from statutes and hence must be allowed.
The Worldwide Perspective
In
the world, only a handful of countries have permitted active euthanasia, which
includes Canada, New Zealand, Spain and Colombia, among others. The rest of the
countries like India, the United States, the United Kingdom and France have
legalized passive euthanasia. Yet, there are still many countries that are
dominated by religious ideology and social barriers that have not yet legalized
euthanasia in any form. Among them, China, Russia, Indonesia are some of the
most prominent countries.
In
modern times the issues of suicide and euthanasia have surfaced in the public
consciousness in varied ways. Yet, the people who had at once abhorred the idea
of euthanasia and suicide as blasphemous have now started to accept it as a
social reality. The stigma against depression and psychological therapy having
greatly reduced have allowed science to get an enhanced look at the reality of
these issues. Depression has come to the forefront of sociology and psychology
as being a great cause of suicide. Society evolves at a constant pace, and it
is this evolution that brings with it change in ethics and morality. What was
once a crime is now a regular part of life, and so what is today morally
unacceptable may not be so in the future.
Yet,
we are still far from the point where the right to die stops being a social
stigma and truly becomes a right of the person to choose the right end to their
own journey. It is through social science that we may be able to understand the
thinking as well as the cause-and-effect relationship between a person choosing
to end their life. In India, for a law permitting euthanasia in all its forms
to be implemented, a multitude of policy-making decisions and parliamentary
debates must take place. This law should also protect that people from being
arbitrarily euthanized and, as such, must have extremely stringent safeguards.
