active and passive euthanasia

Trending Today COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 Legal Framework governing reproductive rights and abortion law The Impact of Contract Law on E-Commerce and Online Transactions Indian Parliament Addressing Judicial Issues in Revenge Porn Cases Triviality section 95 INDIAN YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF KERALA & Ors Legal Framework governing reproductive rights and abortion law The Role of International Law in Shaping Domestic Constitutions Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Cultural Heritage Preservation COMMON CAUSE v. UNION OF INDIA 2018 13 Feb 2025 CASE SUMMARY: In this landmark judgement the apex court in India recognised the right to die with dignity and held passive euthanasia to be legal in the country. Therefore, passive euthanasia was legalised only with strict regulations which allowed individuals to draft a “living will” to outline their end-of-life care preferences. THE CONCEPT OF EUTHANASIA: Euthanasia is a medical practice aimed at peacefully ending the life of a patient who has been in a vegetative state for an extended period. This compassionate action is taken to spare the patient from prolonged suffering and incapacity beyond recovery. In exceptional circumstances, with the patient’s consent expressed through a living will or by the agreement of their loved ones, medical practitioners and doctors may choose to administer euthanasia. Euthanasia is majorly active or passive. Active euthanasia means intentionally ending a patient’s life by taking direct action, typically by administering a lethal dose of medication. Passive euthanasia means letting the patient die by stopping life support, like ventilators or feeding tubes. In passive euthanasia, the patient’s life is not actively terminated but rather allowed to end naturally due to the withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. BACKGROUND AND FACTS OF THE CASE: India’s highest court in P. Rathinam v. Union of India[i] (1994) was served with a question that whether the right to die is a fundamental right under Article 21[ii], Section 309 IPC[iii] (which criminalises attempted suicide), was contested. Citing Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra[iv] (1987), the Court ruled Section 309 unconstitutional, stating that fundamental rights include both positive and negative aspects, thereby suggesting that the right to life also includes the right to die. However, in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab[v], P. Rathinam was overruled, the Court clarified that fundamental rights are unique and shouldn’t be interpreted in the same way. Thus, the right to life does not include the right to die, particularly because suicide requires a deliberate act by the person. The Court differentiated between the “right to die” and the “right to die with dignity,” acknowledging the natural dying process for terminally ill or vegetative state patients. In Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India[vi] (2011), the Court addressed euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug, who was in a persistent vegetative state after a severe assault. The Court ruled that passive euthanasia could be allowed under certain conditions, based on the patient’s consent or a close friend’s judgment, with approval from the High Court and a medical board’s examination. This ruling would stand until Parliament passed relevant legislation. In the 2018 case[vii], A writ petition was submitted asking the court to recognise that the ‘right to live with dignity’ under Article 21 also encompasses the ‘right to die with dignity.’ This would allow individuals in a vegetative state or those who are terminally ill to create a living will or Advance Medical Directive. The petition was first examined by a 3-judge Bench but was later referred to a Constitution Bench because of conflicting legal precedents regarding the right to die. ISSUES RAISED AND ARGUMENTS ADVANCED: The matters addressed in this case pertain to the distinction between active and passive euthanasia, the recognition of the right to die as a fundamental entitlement alongside the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and whether individuals can stipulate passive euthanasia in their living wills under exceptional circumstances. Additionally, has the Law Commission of India provided any recommendations concerning the utilisation of euthanasia to mitigate patient distress? Furthermore, is there any provision affording individuals the authority to cease medical treatment or withdraw life-sustaining equipment, thereby leading to death? In this case the petitioner(s) contended that people should have the right to make their own life decisions, including end-of-life choices, based on their personal autonomy, which is linked to their right to privacy and freedom. They argued that using advanced medical treatments to extend the lives of patients in a vegetative state increased their suffering and violated their autonomy and dignity. They also emphasized that the rights to live and die with dignity are closely related.pointing to the common law principle that lets people refuse medical treatment they don’t want. On the other hand, the respondent, represented by the Ministry of Health and Family Affairs, argued against regulating euthanasia, saying it’s too specific to be governed by uniform laws. They claimed that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to live with dignity, covering necessities like food and medical care, but does not include the right to die with dignity. JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE: In the Gian Kaur, the apex Court said that the right to a respectful death is protected by the Constitution, but they made it clear that this decision didn’t include passive euthanasia. A distinction was drawn between the active euthanasia, which involves an action to end life, and passive euthanasia, which entails removing life support to alleviate suffering. The Court said that the need for a law to make passive euthanasia legal, as decided in the Aruna Shanbaug case, was wrong. Regarding living wills, the Court recognised the adoption of advance medical directives in India, viewing it as a step to safeguard individual autonomy and self-determination. It explored the relationship between autonomy, liberty, and privacy, as established in the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case[viii]. The Court said that privacy rights include decisions about death. They linked these rights to the fundamental rights to life and personal freedom in Article 21 of the Constitution. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in India