Answer:
Article 21 gives people the right to lead a meaningful, complete and dignified life. In case of terminally ill patients though, this right cannot be justly exercised. Thus, it has been argued that in consonance with right to live with dignity, a person who cannot do so, must have a right to die with dignity at least. Euthanasia or assisted suicide has been argued as a means to put the ‘patients out of their misery’. In the 2011 Aruna Shaunbaug judgement, the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia, subject to safeguards and fair procedure requiring mandatory approval of a High Court bench in every case based on consultation with a panel of experts. Passive euthanasia refers to withholding or withdrawing treatment necessary to maintain life.
As per the ruling in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1996, true meaning of the word ‘life’ in Article 21 means life with human dignity. The ‘Right to Die’ if any, is inherently inconsistent with the “Right to Life” as is “death” with “Life”.
The 196th report of the Law Commission of India spoke in favour of passive euthanasia.
♤ Arguments for euthanasia:
o it is a civil right
o it is a question of personal autonomy
o it is necessary to ensure that no one dies in painful agony
o Protective guidelines can be made to prevent misuse of such a law
♤ Arguments against:
o Assisted dying nay be used illegally for personal gains
o It may be promoted as a cheaper alternative to medicinal care
o Hospital care and proper treatment provide morally acceptable answers
♤ Both euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal in Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, while euthanasia is legalised in Columbia.
The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients Bill 2016 seeks to codify the framework decided in the Aruna Shaunbaug judgement. Some concerns are:
♤ It does not employ enough safeguards for proper execution of advance directives
♤ It allows a child to take a decision on the matter of life and death
♤ The framework of obtaining permission from a High Court can delay the cases
♤ The classification of patients may not pass the test of judicial scrutiny.