Euthanasia-

Euthanasia literally translates into "good death". Euthanasia or synonymized as

mercy killing is a practice used to end prolonged anguish and pain. We are a
country where ethics, morality, and religion have vital importance. Deliberately
and wilfully ending a person's life can be a major step. We have progressed and
developed to an extent that technological advancements can help sustain human
life. However, sometimes it is more of a bane rather boon.
There are two conflicting schools of thought about the same. On one hand, some
people are of the opinion that passive euthanasia dilutes the sanctity of human life
since the preservation of human life is of paramount importance. It is God-given
and only he has the power to take it away. No human shall meddle with it. On the
other hand, some people state that when the constitution grants the right to life than
an individual shall also be entitled to the right to die with dignity in order to end
suffering and pain.
Initially, the courts didn't recognize the right to end a person's life however the
historical case of "Aruna Shanbaug case" forms the foundation for the legalization
of passive euthanasia in India.
Facts of the case-
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug was a staff nurse employed in King Edward
Memorial Hospital, located in Mumbai. One of the sweepers of the hospital
attacked her on 27th November 1973. He choked and strangulated her via a dog
chain in order to restrain any movement from her end in an attempt to rape her.
Upon realizing that Ms. Aruna was menstruating he sodomized her. The very next
day, on 28th November 1973 Ms. Aruna was found lying on the floor with blood
everywhere and all over her. One of the cleaners found her in an unconscious
condition. The strangulation via the dog chain ceased the supply of oxygen to her
brain causing severe damage to the cortex of the brain. She sustained brain stem
contusion too along with cervical cord injury. A petition for the case was filed
under article 32 of the Indian Constitution by a friend of Ms. Aruna in the year
2009, after as many as 36 years of the incident. For so many years Ms. Shanbaug
has been in a "Permanent Vegetative State". She has become extremely feeble and
infirm.
Respondent's arguments
The dean of the Hospital contended that Ms. Shanbaug was being fed and taken
care of by the nurse and hospital staff for as many as 36 years. The staff had
exceptionally and with utmost responsibility and willingness to take care of her.
Therefore, they oppose and resent the idea of Ms. Shanbaug being euthanized.
Now that the patient has crossed as many as 60 years of age she might naturally
succumb to death.
They begged the court to not permit the act of killing. The staff has been diligently
and with respect taking care of all her fundamental necessities and prerequisites.
On the off chance that this is legitimized, the act of euthanasia can be profoundly
inclined to abuse. One of the medical attendants has even been willing to take care
of her without being renumerated. The petitioner unlike the clinic staff neglects to
have such a close-to-home association with the patients and lacks the necessary
emotional attachment.
Since the staff diligently and with utmost dignity took care of Mrs. Shanbaug for
many years. They looked after her basic needs and requirements. Legalization of
passive euthanasia can be prone to misuse by family members, relatives, etc. they
pleaded with the court to reject the allowance of practice of euthanasia. The
hospital staff has an emotional connection with the patient to the extent that one of
the nurses is ready to look after Mrs. Shanbaug for the rest of her life without being
renumerated.
Terminating Ms. Shanbaug's life would be immoral and inhuman since she has a
right to live. Moreover, the hospital's staff's exceptional and selfless service must
also be taken into consideration. Furthermore, since the patient herself is not in a
condition to give consent for withdrawal from the life support system the next big
question to come into the picture Is who would consent for Ms. Shanbaug.
Petitioner's arguments-
A petition was filed by Ms. Shanbaug's friend under article 32 of the Indian
Constitution. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the right to life
guaranteed under article 21 includes the right to life with utmost dignity. It must
therefore also include the right to die with dignity. Any individual suffering from
any terminal illness or is in a permanent vegetative state must be included under
the ambit of the "right to die" in order to end the prolonged suffering and agony.
She lacks any awareness of her surroundings, is even devoid of the ability to chew
her food, can't express anything on her own, and is just bedridden for the past 36
years with no scope of improvement. The patient is virtually dead and the
respondents by not feeding Ms. Shanbaug won't be killing her.
Judgment-
The court drew the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. Active
euthanasia can be seen as the positive and deliberate termination of one's life by
injecting and administering lethal substances. It is considered to be a crime
worldwide except permitted by legislation. In India, active euthanasia is a straight
infringement of section 302 2 and section 3043 of the IPC. Moreover, physician-
assisted suicide is an offense under section 309 4 of IPC. Passive euthanasia on the
other hand is the withdrawal of life-supporting systems or medical treatment. The
main distinction between active and passive euthanasia is that in "active"
something is done deliberately to end life whereas in "passive" something is not
done. A proper procedure and guidelines were enlisted by the apex court for
granting passive euthanasia in the "rarest of rare circumstances" while rejecting the
plea made by the petitioner. The High Court under article 226 would be entitled to
make decisions regarding the withdrawal of the life support system. A bench must
be constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court when an application is
received, before which a committee of three reputed doctors nominated must be
referred. There should be a thorough examination of the patient and state and
family members are provided with a notice issued by the bench. The High Court
must give a speedy decision.
Critical Analysis-
In the previous case of Gian Kaur's case5, the honourable Supreme Court rejected
the recognition of the right to die within the right to life under article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. This case forms the historical judgement of the legalization of
passive euthanasia in India which would end the distress and affliction of patients
undergoing unbearable and prolonged suffering. With the advent of modern
technology, we have failed to recognize that it's not the technology that governs
and sustains humans but rather vice-versa. Every single citizen is entitled to and
reserves the right to die with dignity.