Supreme Court of India allowing passive euthanasia has once again reignited debate around ethical, moral and legal aspects of euthanasia. The topic of passive euthanasia is important from Current affairs point of view as well as for Group Discussion in various recruitment tests of public and private sector.

Background – ‘Active euthanasia’ occurs when the medical professionals deliberately do something that causes the patient to die whereas ‘Passive euthanasia’ is a procedure wherein medical treatment is withdrawn by the doctor with the deliberate intention to hasten the death of a terminally ill patient. In a way, active euthanasia is an ‘act of commission’ by a medical professional whereas ‘passive euthanasia’ is an ‘act of omission’.

The Aruna Shanbaugh case in India had been in the centre stage during the debate over passive euthanasia in India for last few decades. In a landmark judgment on 9^th March 2018, the Hon. Supreme Court of India has recognized and gave sanction to passive euthanasia and living will, saying that human beings have the right to die with dignity. The order passed by a five-judge Constitution bench of the Hon. Supreme Court mentioned that a person can decide when to give up the life support system and added that it has laid down guidelines on who would execute the will and how a nod for passive euthanasia would be granted by the medical board. In this context, certain pros and cons of passive euthanasia need to be deliberated upon.

Arguments in favour of passive euthanasia –  Passive euthanasia proponents argue that people who have an incurable, degenerative, disabling or debilitating condition should be allowed to die with dignity. The principle of passive euthanasia is in line with the Art 21 of Indian constitution which guarantees right to life with dignity to every citizen of India. Passive euthanasia not only relieves the terminally ill patient from the agony of painful life but it also relieves the agony of caretakers .The caregiver’s burden of terminally ill patients is huge and cuts across various domains such as financial, emotional, time, physical, mental and social.

The proponents of passive euthanasia also argue that in a modern day society, every individual has a right to self-determination, and thus should be allowed to choose their own fate.  It can also relieve suffering where someone’s quality of life has become drastically low. It can free up the health care resources to help someone else who is severely ill. Pro-euthanasia activists often point out that India is not the first country in the world to legalise passive euthanasia and there are number of countries including Netherlands, Belgium,etc. which has allowed euthanasia in their jurisdiction and its’ execution has been mostly unproblematic in these countries.

Counter-Arguments – The ‘Right to life’ is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but euthanasia is an unnatural termination of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’. Secondly, it is also to be considered that the duty of the State is to protect life of its citizens and the physician’s duty is to provide care and not to harm patients. The concept of euthanasia is against the soul of ‘Hippocratic Oath’ taken by every doctor. Thirdly, euthanasia weakens society’s respect for the sanctity of life. Euthanasia might not be in a person’s best interests, for example, getting old aged parents killed for property will. It is also feared that euthanasia will lead to less good care for the terminally ill patients and might discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill patients.

It is also feared that the clauses of passive euthanasia can be misutilised for illegal organ transplantation by bribing the medical fraternity. Few believe that in a developing country like India, without developing adequate primary health care services measures, allowing right to die through passive euthanasia could turn out disastrous. The landmark decision of judiciary on passive euthanasia is a piece of judicial legislation and few critics view it as an encroachment on legislative powers of elected representatives by the judiciary. The opponents of euthanasia argue that legalising euthanasia will place society on a slippery slope, which may lead to unacceptable consequences.

All across the world, the stances, views and opinions on euthanasia vary greatly; it is called murderous by some and merciful by others. Such controversy arises generally from the serious social, cultural and moral issues attached to the subject. The verdict on Passive euthanasia by the Hon Supreme court is a welcome step and now it’s a turn of the Government to make the regulations on the same in such a manner that the loopholes in the act should remain minimal so that the soul of concept of passive euthanasia remains intact and every human being is given a right to live with dignity including the right to die.

(The author of this article ,Lt Col (Dr) Satish Dhage, is an ex Army officer and has been qualified for IPS (Indian Police Services) through IPS LCE 2012. Presently, he is Director, MGM Institute of Competitive Exams Aurangabad. For any queries or feedback, he can be contacted on email id : drsatishdhage@gmail.com)