Date of decision: – 09 March, 2018
Citation: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 215 OF 2005
Bench: – CJI Deepak Mishra, Justice A Bhushan, A Sikri, Justice D Y Chandrachud & Justice A Khanwilkar
Appellant: – Common Cause (A Regd. Society)
Respondent: – Union of India
Statute reference: Constitution of India
Facts:-
1.A Registered NGO wrote letters to Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare regarding passive euthanasia. The petitioners received no response from the government.
2. In 2005, a registered NGO filed PIL in the Supreme Court under Art.32 of the Indian constitution to legalize living will and passive euthanasia.
3. The petitioner’s contended that the right to live with dignity is a person’s right till his death so it can be extended to include the right to have a dignified death and that Modern technology has given rise such a situation whereby life of the patient is unnecessarily prolonged causing distress and agony to the patient and his relatives.
4. The petitioners further contended for legalizing living wills whereby a person undergoing persistent pain and suffering can write about the medical treatment and authorize the family to stop such treatment.
Issue: –
- Whether Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the Right to Life includes the Right to Die?
- Whether there is any difference in passive euthanasia and active euthanasia, whether passive euthanasia should be permitted on the living will of patient?
- Whether an individual has any right to refuse medical treatment including withdrawal from life saving devices?
Petitioner’s Arguments:-
- Every individual has a right to self-determination, and thus should be permitted to choose their own fate.
- It is better to die rather than being under persistent pain and suffering using medication that does not cure but prolongs the life of patients.
- The modern medical technology has found out so many drugs and medicines that unnecessarily prolong life of causing a lot of distress and agony to the patients and his/her relatives thereof.
- In cases of incurable, degenerative, disabling or debilitating condition a person should be allowed to die in dignity as in majority of the cases the mercy petition is filed by the sufferers, of the family members or any such caretakers. The burden upon the family is so huge and cuts across various domains such as financial, emotional, time, physical, mental and social aspects.
- Right to refuse medical treatment is well recognized in law, including medical treatment that sustains or prolongs life. The right to renounce treatment gives a way for passive euthanasia.
- Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This, in turn, would help many patients suffering organ failure waiting for transplantation. Passive euthanasia not only gives an individual the ‘Right to die ‘for the terminally ill, but also ‘Right to life’ for the organ needy patients.
Respondent’s Arguments: –
- The ‘Right to life’ under Art.21 is a natural right inherited on birth by every citizen, but euthanasia/suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore it is hostile and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’ and thus Right to life does not include right to die and not all deaths are painful.
- Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search and invention of new cures and treatments for the terminally ill and thus there won’t be any prospect with regard to the discovery of possible cure for the disease in near future.
- It is the duty of the State to protect life and euthanasia would undermine the physician’s duty to provide care and save life of the patients.
- Euthanasia would weaken society’s respect for the sanctity of life.
- There is availability of alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use of effective pain relief.
Judgement: –
Honourable Supreme Court of India in this case held that an individual has a right to die with dignity as a part of his/her Right to life and personal liberty under Art.21 of the Indian Constitution. This ruling thus permits the removal of life-support systems for the terminally ill or those in incurable comas. The court further permitted individuals to decide against artificial life support, and recognized the need for creating a living will.
The Court in this particular case further laid down certain propositions regarding the procedure for execution of Advance Directives and provided the guidelines thereof to give effect to passive euthanasia.
Conclusion:-
The concept of passive euthanasia is quite controversial and raises an array of sophisticated moral, ethical, social, philosophical, legal and religious concerns. Broadly there are two groups formed with regard to passive euthanasia. The first one is the regional group which does not recognize a right to die, believing life to be a divine gift.
The second one relates to the requirement of consent. The capacity of terminally-ill patients to give informed consent for their own killing is often questioned. As a reason in the past there have been many campaigns relating to euthanasia some for its support while others for its withdrawal.
However, taking into account the interest of people, laws have been laid down in support of euthanasia. Though this concept opposes the religious beliefs but considered beneficial to the society. In this regard there is a clash between law and religion. In cases of unreasonable and unjustifiable practices law prevails over religion.
Therefore, this is a judgment in right direction. Those suffering from chronic diseases are often subjected to persistent pain and suffering and the treatments where there is no cure but only medication and treatment that only prolongs life.
Denying them the right to die in a dignified manner extends their suffering. Hence, the court is right in declaring Right to Die with Dignity as a Fundamental Right as it would help in reducing the pains of those suffering from chronic treatments and they will be able to die in a dignified manner.
Shubham Rawat
