This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
CLASSIFICATIONEuthanasia is divided into subfields which are broken down
circumstantially:Voluntary Euthanasia – euthanasia by consent (2
cases of Voluntary) • Passive – Passive euthanasia is the denial of treatments
which would be necessary to sustain one’s life. In other words, life saving medicines would be discontinued in order to bring about death voluntarily. This is considered passive, in that, the doctor is not directly involved in administering death causing medicines.
• Active – Active euthanasia is the use of lethal substances which results in death. The individual may use devises to his or her own will to induce death voluntarily.
Involuntary Euthanasia• Euthanasia conducted without consent is termed
involuntary euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted where an individual makes a decision for another person incapable of doing so. E.g. prolonged comma
Assisted suicide• When the patient brings about his or her own death with
the assistance of a physician, the term assisted suicide is often used instead.
Religious views have shaped morality, ethics and therefore law, as a result, euthanasia is not practiced in many countries.– What is interesting to note is that even
with the large diversity in the world the majority embrace a moral value which bans the use of euthanasia from being practiced.
• Christianity – Your body isn’t yours its property of god. (1 Corinthians 6: 19-20)
• Islam – Do not kill (or destroy)• Hindu – Urge against the practice due
to the damage it creates to ones Karma.
• Orthodox Church – Opposes euthanasia– Nearly all religious groups, forbid
Under the Penal Code, any form of assistance to a person in ending his/her life attracts punishments.However, for public policy, the courts have come up with a defense to the charge of voluntary Euthanasia.Other nations like Oregon, Washington and Belgiu have recognized the right to die with dignity under their statutory law, i.e. the Oregon State has enacted the Death with dignity Act, 1997.
universal right• “Right to Life” - the right of a person to live
with human dignity. • There is a controversy which argues whether
the “right to live” includes a “right to die”.• In State of Maharashtra Vs Maruti
Shripati Dubal, the Bombay High Court said, “Everyone should have the freedom to dispose of his life as and when he desires”.
• And this decision was upheld in P Rathinam Vs Union of India here in this case the Supreme Court said that, “A person cannot be forced to enjoy life to his detriment, disadvantage or disliking”.
• In the case of Gain Kaur's, a 5 Judge Bench overruled “P Rathinam's case”, and said, “The 'right to life' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not include the 'right to die' or 'right to be killed'... the right to life would mean the existence of such a right up to the end of natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life up to the point of death including a dignified procedure of death”.
• Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs. Union of India In this Case the Supreme Court of India laid a decision saying that, “right to live with dignity also includes within its scope, the right to die with dignity”
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs. Union of India The Supreme Court of India allowed for passive euthanasia (i.e.) the withdrawal of the life supporting system. A person who is attempting to suicide and requesting to die with dignity has some difference. It is that as per Human Rights, a man should hold certain rights to have a dignified death. A prior attention to Netherlands which provides a “Right to Die with Dignity” to its people is required. The other facets that proponents seek to use as their basis for legalization of euthanasia include the right against torture, right to privacy and self-determination. Right to Life guaranteed under the Indian Constitution protects the people against all forms of Torture and this would include the right to not live with pain and suffering which would tantamount to torture. There are many cases where death by withdrawal of life supporting system has been allowed in states which do not allow euthanasia in case of patients under “permanent vegetative state”. This is one of the sorts of passive euthanasia which allows a patient to reach his death without any active steps. Here the court rejected the plea of euthanasia, but it laid guidelines for passive euthanasia after setting a medical panel to examine her. The court allowed withdrawing the life supporting system allowing for a passive euthanasia.
The medical law jurisprudence adds further support towards accomplishing the goal of recognizing Active and passive forms of euthanasia. The right to refuse treatment is another principle which is accepted by numerous countries and juristic systems. In Sidaway Vs. Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital, the Court held that the right to refuse treatment receives protection under the common law and it was also held that the same was a basic human right. The United States Courts have gone further to state that a person deciding against treatment would not be in the same shoes of a person who attempts to commit suicide, which is a punishable offence in most common law and juristic system. To bring about a change in the law recognizing passive euthanasia, this punishable offence has been made redundant by amending acts.
SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIAArguments supporting legalization of
PAS/euthanasia• It provides a way to relieve extreme pain• It provides a way to relief when a person’s
quality of life is low.• Frees up medical funds to help other people.• Proponents perceive PAS as an act of humanity
toward the terminally ill patient. • They believe the patient and family should not
be forced to suffer through a long and painful death, even if the only way to alleviate the suffering is through suicide.
• According to the proponents of PAS, it becomes ethical and justified when the quality of life of the terminally ill patient becomes so low that death remains the only justifiable means to relieve suffering.
• Lack of any justifiable means of recovery and the dying patient himself making the choice to end his life are conditions which make euthanasia more justifiable.
• circumstances of terminal illness, pain, increased disability, and fears of becoming (or continuing to be) a burden to family and friends.
• Given the possibility that these symptoms and circumstances may not be relieved, even with aggressive palliative care and social services, the decision to hasten one's death may seem rational.
• Proponents of euthanasia also criticize the “artificial and impractical” demarcation drawn by the court and the religious organizations between active and passive euthanasia.
There is sufficient legal basis to include within the ambit of the law the right to euthanasia.
The law needs to play the role of a equilibrium in such a situation wherein it must empathize with the suffering and needs of terminally ill persons and at the same time reconcile with stern principles and legal concepts present under various laws.