Euthanasia: Right to die with dignity

A Bengaluru woman goes to Delhi HC to stop her friend’s Euthanasia trip to Europe.

According to a petition filed before the court, the man has had chronic fatigue syndrome since and is allegedly planning to travel to Switzerland for physician-assisted suicide.

It is an easy or painless death or the intentional ending of the life of a person suffering from an incurable or painful disease at his or her request.

Active euthanasia is a crime under sections 302 or 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In the Supreme Court in 2011, Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India held that passive euthanasia could be allowed under exceptional circumstances.
In the Common Cause v. Union of India case, the Supreme Court held that a person in a persistent vegetative state could opt for passive euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia means intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support such as a ventilator or feeding tube.

Article 21 provides for living with dignity.
A person has a right to live a life with at least the minimum dignity, and if that standard falls below that minimum level, a person should be given the right to end his life.
Helping rather than harming:

Its aim is altruistic and beneficial as it is an act of painlessly putting to death those who are suffering from painful and incurable diseases.
So, the motive behind this is to help rather than harm.
Global examples:

It can be understood from other examples that the following euthanasia will not necessarily lead to unacceptable consequences.
For example, countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, etc., where euthanasia has been legalised to justify that it is mostly trouble-free.
Redistributing efforts to save more lives:

In many developing countries like India, there is a shortage of funds and hospital space.
Energy of doctors and hospital beds can be used for those whose lives can be saved instead of continuing the lives of those who want to die.
The choice to say no to suffering:

Many people feel that it is better to die than to go through the pain of diagnosed diseases and their treatments, which are even more painful.
For example, Cancer and chemotherapy

It is totally against medical ethics, morals, and public policy.
Medical ethics calls for nursing, caregiving and healing, not ending the patient’s life.
Killing people for their wealth:
Patients wouldn’t be able to trust their physicians or their family members because many of them used the term “aided murder” when discussing the patient’s painless, dignified death.
It can motivate people to decide on euthanasia:
It is feared that if euthanasia is legalised, then other groups of more vulnerable people will risk feeling the option themselves.
Religious arguments:

Human life is the gift of God, and taking life is wrong, and evil human beings cannot be given the right to play the part of God.
For example, the Roman Catholic church is one of the most active organisations in opposing euthanasia.
Advanced medical science to help:

India needs improved access to high-quality healthcare for the terminally ill so that they can go in peace whenever they do.
This is referred to as palliative care right from when an illness is diagnosed to the end of life.
Living will:
The decision of the Supreme Court to allow passive euthanasia and living will is a landmark judgment and upholds the fundamental right to life, which includes the right to die with dignity.
Legislative efforts:
The 241st report of the Law Commission states that passive euthanasia should be allowed with certain safeguards, and there is a proposed law—Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients Bill, 2006—in this regard.

Euthanasia is indeed a contentious issue, with the heart of the debate lying at active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
There is an urgent need to invest in our health care system so that people suffering from serious ill health can access free health care.
Investment in health care is under the ‘Right to Health’ which is bestowed under ‘Right to Life’ of our Constitution.
Thus, the complete expenses need to be borne by the State so that the ‘Right to life’ becomes a reality and succeeds before the ‘Right to die with dignity.

Pic Courtesy: ipleaders

Content Source: The Hindu