essay on euthanasia in india in hindi

निबंध ( Hindi Essay)

Essay on Euthanasia in India in Hindi

जैसा कि हम सब जानते हैं कि भारत में बहुत प्रकार के नियम कानून बनाए गए हैं। और हम यह भी जानते हैं कि भारत एक लोकतांत्रिक देश है। यहां प्रत्येक व्यक्ति के पास अपने आप से जुड़े कोई भी प्रकार का फैसला लेने का अधिकार है। भारत लोकतांत्रिक देश होने के साथ-साथ स्वतंत्र देश भी है और यहां निवास करने वाले हर एक व्यक्ति के पास किसी भी कार्य को करने का अधिकार है। परंतु आज के युग में इच्छा मृत्यु एक बहुत बड़ा चर्चा का विषय बन चुका है। क्या इच्छा मृत्यु लोगों के अधिकार के अंतर्गत हैं ?क्या यह सही है या गलत है? इच्छा मृत्यु से जुड़े लोगों के मन में बहुत सारे सवाल होते हैं। जहां कई लोग इसके विरुद्ध है तो कई लोग इसके पक्ष में हैं। इच्छा मृत्यु से जुड़े कानून व्यवस्था के बारे में जानने से पहले आपको यह जानना बहुत जरूरी है कि इच्छा मृत्यु होता क्या है। तू आइए हम इच्छा मृत्यु के बारे मे विस्तार से जानते हैं।

इच्छा मृत्यु क्या है:-

हमारे देश में काफी समय से इच्छा मृत्यु पर विचार विमर्श किया जा रहा है। किसी भी प्रकार के जानलेवा बीमारी से ग्रस्त लोगों को उनकी इच्छा से मृत्यु प्रदान करना ही इच्छा मृत्यु कहलाता है। मतलब की अगर कोई भी इंसान बीमार है और उस बीमारी का इलाज मुमकिन नहीं है तब वह मरीज अपनी मर्जी से पूरे सम्मान के साथ अपना प्राण त्याग सकता है ।तो उस व्यक्ति को पूरे सम्मान के साथ मृत्य प्रदान कर दिया जाता है ।यही इच्छा मृत्यु कहलाता है।

हमारे भारत देश में इच्छा मृत्यु की प्रथा प्राचीन काल से चली आ रही है। भारतीय शास्त्र- पुराण में ऐसे बहुत सारे इच्छा मृत्यु के उदाहरण है। प्राचीन काल में लोगों को अपनी इच्छा मृत्यु का वरदान प्राप्त होता था जिसके कारण वह जब चाहे, जहां चाहे ,जैसे चाहे, अपने प्राण त्याग सकते थे। प्राचीन काल में भगवान श्री राम का शबरी से भेंट होने के बाद शबरी का अग्नि में खुद को भस्म कर लेना इच्छा मृत्यु का एक उदाहरण है। और महाभारत के दौरान भीष्म पितामह को वरदान स्वरूप इच्छा मृत्यु प्राप्त थी। इसी कारण भीष्म पितामह ने सूर्य का उत्तर नारायण होने पर ही अपना प्राण त्यागा ।

इच्छा मृत्यु से जुड़े कानून व्यवस्था:-

भारत में इच्छा मृत्यु से जुड़े कानून व्यवस्था को मंजूरी मिल चुकी है। भारत में अन्य देशों की तरह हि इच्छा मृत्यु से जुड़े कुछ प्रकार के कानून व्यवस्था बनाए गए हैं। अदालत के अपील करने पर सरकार द्वारा इससे जुड़े कुछ कानून बनाए गए हैं। भारत में फरवरी 2015 में सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा इच्छा मृत्यु को संविधान पीठ में भेज दिया था। परंतु धार्मिक मान्यता वाले देश में सरकार इच्छा मृत्यु की अनुमति देने में असमर्थ थे क्योंकि सरकार का कहना था कि यदि हम किसी व्यक्ति को जिंदगी नहीं दे सकते तो उसे मौत देने का अधिकार भी हमें नहीं है।

भारत में सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने एक ऐतिहासिक निर्णय में आदेश जारी किया जिसमें भारत में निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु की अनुमति दी गई। इस आदेश में एक मरीज को गरिमा के साथ मरने का मौलिक अधिकार घोषित किया गया। 9 मार्च 2018 को भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा जारी सख्त दिशा-निर्देशो के अनुसार भारत में निष्क्रिय इच्छा मृत्यु को वैध कर दिया गया है। यह दिशानिर्देश उन रोगियों को अनुमति देता है जो या तो लाइलाज रूप में बीमार हैं या वनस्पतिक रूप से जीने की इच्छा के साथ ध्यान देने की अनुमति देते हैं। भारत में इच्छा मृत्यु को एक मरीज के फैसले के एक भाग के रूप में वैध कर दिया गया था।

भारत में इच्छा मृत्यु को वैध बनाने के लिए बनाए गए इस कानून में कोड 309 को खत्म करने के लिए भी कहा, जो आत्महत्या के प्रयास से बचने वाले लोगों को दंडित करता है। भारत सरकार ने दिसंबर 2014 में कानून में सहमत होने के अपने इरादे की घोषणा की थी।

इच्छा मृत्यु के प्रकार:-

यूथेनेसिया यानि की इच्छा मृत्यु को दया मृत्यु भी कहा जाता है। व्यावहारिक रूप में यूथेनेसिया का मतलब अपने जीवन को खत्म करना है। इच्छाओं को दो रूप में बांटा गया है।

1. निष्क्रिय इच्छा मृत्यु

2. सक्रिय इच्छामृत्यु

निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु में कष्ट झेल रहे मरीज का इलाज रोक दिया जाता है जिसके कारण उसकी मृत्यु हो जाती है। निष्क्रिय इच्छा मृत्यु के अंतर्गत मरीज को चिकित्सकों द्वारा दी जाने वाली सुविधा जैसे वेंटीलेटर को हटा दिया जाता है जिसके कारण मरीज की मृत्यु हो जाती है।

सक्रिय इच्छामृत्यु, निष्क्रिय इच्छा मृत्यु के विपरीत होता है। सक्रिय इच्छामृत्यु में मरीज की पूर्ण सहमति के पश्चात चिकित्सकों द्वारा उसे दवा या जहर का इंजेक्शन देकर मरीज को मृत्यु प्रदान किया जाता है। सक्रिय इच्छामृत्यु भारत के साथ-साथ कई अलग देशों में भी जारी किया गया है। बाकी देशों में इच्छा मृत्यु के निर्णय तय करने के लिए विशेष आयोग को अधिकार प्रदान किया गया है।

संसद द्वारा इच्छा मृत्यु के संबंध में ठोस कानून बनाना बहुत ही आवश्यक हो गया है। भारत जैसे कई अन्य देशों में भी इच्छा मृत्यु के अधिकार को लेकर संवेदनाशिल है। पूरी दुनिया में निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु को ज्यादा मान्यता दी जाती है क्योंकि इसके अंतर्गत किसी भी प्रकार की दवाइयों का इस्तेमाल नहीं किया जाता , बस इसके अंतर्गत मरीज को दी जाने वाली चिकित्सक सुविधा को बंद कर दिया जाता है, जिसके कारण मरीज की मृत्यु हो जाती है। आज के युग में इच्छा मृत्यु की भावना युवाओं में ज्यादा देखी जा रही है, क्योंकि वे अपनी जिंदगी से तंग होकर आत्महत्या करने की ओर बढ़ने के लिए मजबूर होते दिखाई दे रहे हैं। भारत सरकार के लिए इच्छा मृत्यु से जुड़ी कानून बनाना एक बहुत कठिन फैसला है। परंतु यह एक हद तक सही भी है, और एक हद तक गलत भी। इसीलिए सरकार द्वारा कुछ ऐसे नियम कानून बनाने चाहिए जिसके अंदर वे लोगों को जीवन जीने के सही मायने के बारे में बता

Essay on rules of Cleanliness and Legal Matter in Hindi

Essay on need of cleanliness in hindi, भारत में स्वच्छता पर निबंध – भूमिका, महत्व, और उपाय, essay on e-commerce in india in hindi, essay on impact and scope of gst bill in india in hindi, essay on racial discrimination in india in hindi.

Essay on Election in Hindi

Essay on road rage in hindi, essay on environment in hindi | पर्यावरण पर निबंध हिंदी में, essay on social issues of india in hindi.

Classroom Programme
Interview Guidance
Online Programme
Drishti Store
My Bookmarks
My Progress
Change Password
From The Editor's Desk
How To Use The New Website
Help Centre

Achievers Corner

Topper's Interview
About Civil Services
UPSC Prelims Syllabus
GS Prelims Strategy
Prelims Analysis
GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
CSAT Strategy
Previous Years Papers
Practice Quiz
Weekly Revision MCQs
60 Steps To Prelims
Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

Mains GS Syllabus
Mains GS Strategy
Mains Answer Writing Practice
Essay Strategy
Fodder For Essay
Model Essays
Drishti Essay Competition
Ethics Strategy
Ethics Case Studies
Ethics Discussion
Ethics Previous Years Q&As
Papers By Years
Papers By Subject
Be MAINS Ready
Awake Mains Examination 2020
Interview Strategy
Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

Daily News & Editorial
Daily CA MCQs
Sansad TV Discussions
Monthly CA Consolidation
Monthly Editorial Consolidation
Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

To The Point
Important Institutions
Learning Through Maps
PRS Capsule
Summary Of Reports
Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

NCERT Books
NIOS Study Material
IGNOU Study Material
Yojana & Kurukshetra
Chhatisgarh
Uttar Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

UPSC Prelims Test Series
UPSC Mains Test Series
UPPCS Prelims Test Series
UPPCS Mains Test Series
BPSC Prelims Test Series
RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
Daily Editorial Analysis
YouTube PDF Downloads
Strategy By Toppers
Ethics - Definition & Concepts
Mastering Mains Answer Writing
Places in News
UPSC Mock Interview
PCS Mock Interview
Interview Insights
Prelims 2019
Product Promos
Daily Updates

Make Your Note

Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia

17 Sep 2022
GS Paper - 4
Ethics and Human Interface

For Mains : Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia and related issues

Why in News?

Recently, Jean-Luc Godard, one of the legends of French New Wave cinema, died by assisted suicide at the age of 91.

What is Assisted Suicide?

Assisted suicide and euthanasia both are practices under which a person intentionally ends their life with active assistance from others.
Several European nations, some states in Australia and Colombia in South America allow assisted suicide and euthanasia under certain circumstances.
Active euthanasia, which is legal in only a few countries, entails the use of substances to end the life of the patient.
It involves simply stopping lifesaving treatment or medical intervention with the consent of the patient or a family member or a close friend representing the patient.

What are the Arguments for and against Assisted Suicide?

Advocates argue that the person should be able to make their own choice.
Only the individual really knows how they feel, and how the physical and emotional pain of illness and prolonged death impacts their quality of life.
Every individual should be able to die with dignity.
It makes more sense to channel the resources of highly skilled staff , equipment, hospital beds, and medications toward lifesaving treatments for those who wish to live, rather than those who do not.
It is more humane to allow a person with intractable suffering to be allowed to choose to end that suffering.
It can help to shorten the grief and suffering of loved ones.
Several faiths see euthanasia as a form of murder and morally unacceptable. Suicide, too, is “illegal” in some religions. Morally, there is an argument that euthanasia will weaken society’s respect for the sanctity of life.
Euthanasia is only voluntary if the patient is mentally competent , with a lucid understanding of available options and consequences, and the ability to express that understanding and their wish to terminate their own life. Determining or defining competence is not straightforward.
Patients may feel they are a burden on resources and are psychologically pressured into consenting. They may feel that the financial, emotional, and mental burden on their family is too great.
There is a risk that physician-assisted suicide will start with those who are terminally ill and wish to die because of intractable suffering, but then begin to include other individuals.
Regulation: Euthanasia cannot be properly regulated.

Does India allow Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia?

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia in 2018, stating that it was a matter of ‘living will’.
According to the judgment, an adult in his conscious mind is permitted to refuse medical treatment or voluntarily decide not to take medical treatment to embrace death in a natural way, under certain conditions.
The court laid down a set of guidelines for ‘living will’ and defined passive euthanasia and euthanasia as well.
It also laid down guidelines for ‘living will’ made by terminally ill patients who beforehand know about their chances of slipping into a permanent vegetative state.
The court specifically stated that the rights of a patient, in such cases, would not fall out of the purview of Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
A vegetative state is when a person is awake but is showing no signs of awareness.
However, another bench of the Supreme Court, in 2014, cited inconsistencies in earlier verdicts on passive euthanasia , including the one given in the Shanbaug case, and referred the matter to a Constitution bench.

Skip to main content
Skip to secondary menu
Skip to primary sidebar
Skip to footer

A Plus Topper

Improve your Grades

Euthanasia in India Essay | Essay on Euthanasia in India for Students and Children in English

February 14, 2024 by Prasanna

Euthanasia in India Essay: The Supreme Court of India passed an order in a landmark judgment that allowed passive euthanasia in India. This order declared the fundamental right of a patient to die with dignity.

According to the reports of some top news reports in India, a five-judge bench of the apex court led by the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India, and other Justices issued a guideline that stated the living would be made terminally-ill patients.

You can also find more Essay Writing articles on events, persons, sports, technology and many more.

Long and Short Essays on Euthanasia in India for Students and Kids in English

We provide students with essay samples on a long essay of 500 words and a short essay of 150 words on the topic Euthanasia In India for reference.

Long Essay on Euthanasia in India 500 Words in English

Long Essay on Euthanasia in India is usually given to classes 7, 8, 9, and 10.

According to the strict guidelines passed by the Supreme Court of India on 9th March in 2018, passive euthanasia has been legalized in India. These guidelines allow patients who are either terminally ill or vegetative to give consent with the will to live. Euthanasia in India was legalized as a part of the verdict in a patient, Aruna Shanbaug, who was in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) and later died in 2015.

Pinki Virani’s plea to the Supreme Court of India in December 2009 made the judgment of euthanasia in India pass, under the Constitutional provision of “Next Friend.” In this landmark law, the power of choice to live or die is given to the hands of the individual who is suffering from any terminal illness and not to any government, medical or religious control.

Two irreversible conditions were specified by the Supreme Court of India to permit euthanasia in India in its 2011 Passive Euthanasia Law. These two conditions are i) Ventilator can be switched off for a brain-dead person. ii) Pain-managing palliatives can be added, and the feed can be tapered out for those in Persistent Vegetative State according to some laid-down international specifications.

This same law made for legalizing euthanasia in India also asked for the scrapping of code 309, which punishes the people who survive suicide attempts. The Government of India declared its intentions to agree with the law in December 2014.

The High Court, through lethal injection, rejected active euthanasia in India. There was no law for regulating euthanasia in India at that time. So, the court stated that their decision would remain as the law of the land until the Parliament of India enacts a fair law. Active euthanasia is still illegal in India and most other countries.

That one person with whom the whole case of legalizing euthanasia in India is related is Aruna Shanbaug. She was a nurse in King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. On 27th November 1973, Sohanlal Walmiki, a sweeper, strangled her with a chain and sodomized her. Deprivation of oxygen made Aruna go through a vegetative state from then. She was being treated in the KEM hospital, and doctors used a feeding tube to keep her alive.

A social activist Pinki Virani, who was also a friend of Aruna, filed a petition in the Supreme Court, arguing that the patient’s continued existence was a violation of her right to live in dignity. The Supreme Court of India made its decision on 7th March 2011 and rejected the plea to discontinue Aruna Shanbaug’s life support. But, the court issued several broad guidelines that legalized euthanasia in India.

According to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India, passive euthanasia includes the withdrawal of treatment and food that would allow the patient suffering from a terminal illness or vegetative state to live. The doctors and staff of the KEM hospital didn’t support euthanizing Aruna. Aruna died on 18th May 2015 from pneumonia after being in a coma for 42 years.

Short Essay on Euthanasia in India 150 Words in English

Short Essay on Euthanasia in India is usually given to classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Passive euthanasia is a guideline that states that a person suffering from a terminal illness or in a vegetative state has the right to tell the hospital staff to stop his/her life support. Passive euthanasia includes the withdrawal of treatment and food that helps the patient to live.

Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse in King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. On 27th November 1973, Sohanlal Walmiki, a sweeper, strangled her with a chain and sodomized her. Deprivation of oxygen made Aruna go through a vegetative state from then. She was being treated in the KEM hospital, and doctors used a feeding tube to keep her alive.

10 Lines on Euthanasia in India in English

Euthanasia was legalized in India on 9th March 2018.
The whole case of euthanasia is related to Aruna Shanbaug.
Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Mumbai.
She was strangled and sodomized by a sweeper.
Aruna’s friend Pinki Virani filed a petition in the Supreme Court, arguing that the patient’s continued existence was a violation of her right to live in dignity.
The Supreme Court at that time discarded the plea and issued broad guidelines legalizing passive euthanasia in India.
Active euthanasia is illegal in India and many other countries.
Passive euthanasia is done by stopping treatment and withdrawing food that let the patient live.
A patient must be terminally ill or in a vegetative state to appeal for euthanasia.
Aruna Shanbaug died from pneumonia after being in a coma for 42 years.

FAQ’s on Euthanasia in India Essay

Question 1. What is euthanasia?

Answer: Euthanasia is a process legalized in India by the Supreme Court that allows patients who are either terminally ill or in a vegetative state to consent with the will to live.

Question 2. How is euthanasia done?

Answer: Euthanasia is done by stopping any treatment and withdrawing food that helps the patient to live.

Question 3. When was passive euthanasia legalized in India?

Answer: According to the strict guidelines passed by the Supreme Court of India on 9th March in 2018, passive euthanasia has been legalized in India.

Question 4. Who filed a petition related to euthanasia in India first?

Answer: Pinki Virani, a social activist and a friend of Aruna Shanbaug, filed the petition related to euthanasia for the first time in India.

Picture Dictionary
English Speech
English Slogans
English Letter Writing
English Essay Writing
English Textbook Answers
Types of Certificates
ICSE Solutions
Selina ICSE Solutions
ML Aggarwal Solutions
HSSLive Plus One
HSSLive Plus Two
Kerala SSLC
Distance Education

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Indian J Psychiatry
v.54(2); Apr-Jun 2012

Euthanasia: An Indian perspective

Vinod k. sinha.

Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Central Institute of Psychiatry, Kanke, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India

1 Consultant Psychiatrist, Victoria, Australia

2 Department of Psychiatry, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

In our society, the palliative care and quality of life issues in patients with terminal illnesses like advanced cancer and AIDS have become an important concern for clinicians. Parallel to this concern has arisen another controversial issue-euthanasia or “mercy –killing” of terminally ill patients. Proponents of physician-assisted suicide (PAS) feel that an individual's right to autonomy automatically entitles him to choose a painless death. The opponents feel that a physician's role in the death of an individual violates the central tenet of the medical profession. Moreover, undiagnosed depression and possibility of social ‘coercion’ in people asking for euthanasia put a further question mark on the ethical principles underlying such an act. These concerns have led to strict guidelines for implementing PAS. Assessment of the mental state of the person consenting to PAS becomes mandatory and here, the role of the psychiatrist becomes pivotal. Although considered illegal in our country, PAS has several advocates in the form of voluntary organizations like “death with dignity” foundation. This has got a fillip in the recent Honourable Supreme Court Judgment in the Aruna Shaunbag case. What remains to be seen is how long it takes before this sensitive issue rattles the Indian legislature.

INTRODUCTION

The phenomenal advances in medical science and technology have not been without a significant impact on society. They have brought into forefront issues that are altering the pattern of human living and societal values. Pari passu with these changes is the upsurge of affirmation of human rights, autonomy, and freedom of choice. These issues compel us to re-evaluate our concepts of societal and medical ethics and value systems.

Amongst these issues, the palliative care and quality of life issues in patients with terminal illnesses like advanced cancer and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) have become an important area of clinical care and investigation. Significant progress has been made in extending a palliative care/quality of life research agenda to the clinical problems of patients with cancer, including efforts that focus on mental health related issues such as neuropsychiatric syndromes and psychological symptoms in patients with terminal medical illness. However, perhaps the most compelling and clinically relevant mental health issues in palliative care today concern the desire for death and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and their relationship to depression.

Desire for death has been postulated as a construct that is central to a number of related issues or phenomena, including suicide and suicidal ideation, interest in PAS/euthanasia, and request for PAS/euthanasia. This construct, which was initially proposed by Brown and colleagues[ 1 ] and further developed by Chochinov et al .[ 2 ] focuses on the degree to which an individual wishes his or her life could end sooner. It ranges from suicidal intent (i.e., a desire to end one's life immediately) to a complete absence of any desire to die.

Advocates demanding autonomy for patients regarding how and when they die have been increasingly vocal during recent years, sparked by the highly publicized cases of Drs Jack Kevorkian, Timothy Quill, and Aruna Shanbaug . These cases have centered on the plight of dying patients with terminal illnesses.

What has often been overlooked, however, in the political and legal machinations, is the importance of medical, social, and psychological factors (e.g., depression) that may contribute to suicidal ideation, desire for hastened death, or requests for PAS by terminally ill patients.

DEFINITION OF EUTHANASIA AND PAS

The English philosopher Sir Francis Bacon coined the phrase “euthanasia” early in the 17 th century. Euthanasia is derived from the Greek word eu, meaning “good” and thanatos meaning “death,” and early on signified a “good” or “easy” death.[ 3 ] Euthanasia is defined as the administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient's intolerable and incurable suffering.[ 4 ] Typically, the physician's motive is merciful and intended to end suffering. Euthanasia is performed by physicians and has been further defined as “active” or “passive.” Active euthanasia refers to a physician deliberately acting in a way to end a patient's life. Passive euthanasia pertains to withholding or withdrawing treatment necessary to maintain life. There are three types of active euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is one form of active euthanasia which is performed at the request of the patient. Involuntary euthanasia, also known as “mercy killing,” involves taking the life of a patient who has not requested for it, with the intent of relieving his pain and suffering. In nonvoluntary euthanasia, the process is carried out even though the patient is not in a position to give consent.[ 5 ]

PAS, on the other hand, involves a physician providing medications or advice to enable the patient to end his or her own life. While theoretical and/or ethical distinctions between euthanasia and PAS may be subtle to some, the practical distinctions may be significant. Many terminally ill patients have access to potentially lethal medications, at times even upon request from their physicians, yet do not use these medications to end their own lives.

Both euthanasia and PAS have been distinguished, legally and ethically, from the administration of high-dose pain medication meant to relieve a patient's pain that may hasten death (often referred to as the rule of double effect) or even the withdrawal of life support.[ 6 , 7 ] The distinction between euthanasia/PAS and the administration of high-dose pain medications that may hasten death is premised on the intent behind the act. In euthanasia/PAS, the intent is to end the patient's life, while in the administration of pain medications that may also hasten death; the intent is to relieve suffering.

Distinctions between withdrawal of life support and euthanasia/PAS are, in many ways, considerably clearer. Long-standing civil case law has supported the rights of patients to refuse any unwanted treatment, even though such treatment refusals may cause death.[ 8 ] On the other hand, patients have not had the converse right to demand treatments or interventions that they desire. This distinction has had the effect of allowing a patient on life support the ability to end his or her life on request, yet a patient who is not dependent on life support does not have such a right.

LEGALIZATION OF PAS AND EUTHANASIA

Arguments supporting legalization of pas/euthanasia.

The arguments supporting legalization of euthanasia/PAS are substantial. Proponents perceive PAS as an act of humanity toward the terminally ill patient. They believe the patient and family should not be forced to suffer through a long and painful death, even if the only way to alleviate the suffering is through suicide. According to the proponents of PAS, it becomes ethical and justified when the quality of life of the terminally ill patient becomes so low that death remains the only justifiable means to relieve suffering. Lack of any justifiable means of recovery and the dying patient himself making the choice to end his life are conditions which make euthanasia more justifiable.[ 9 ] To the advocate for PAS, legalization of PAS is a natural extension of patient's autonomy and the right to determine what treatments are accepted or refused. Arguments in favor of legalization of PAS are typically premised on the assumption that requests for PAS are “rational” decision, given the circumstances of terminal illness, pain, increased disability, and fears of becoming (or continuing to be) a burden to family and friends. Given the possibility that these symptoms and circumstances may not be relieved, even with aggressive palliative care and social services, the decision to hasten one's death may seem rational.[ 10 ] Proponents of euthanasia also criticize the “artificial and impractical” demarcation drawn by the court and the religious organizations between active and passive euthanasia. Withdrawal of life support, the classical form of “passive” euthanasia, actually involves taking an “active” step to hasten the death of a terminally ill patient and it is the patient's consent which lends legitimacy to the act. If, following consent of a similar nature, a physician administers a lethal dose of injection, there is no reason why this act should be considered as illegal or immoral.[ 11 ] Moreover, the desire to include one's physician in carrying out a decision to end one's life can be viewed as an extension of the natural reliance of terminally ill patients on their physicians for help with most aspects of their illness, as well as reasonable mechanism to ensure that they do not become more disabled and burdensome to their family or friends by attempting suicide unsuccessfully (causing a persistent vegetative state or increased disability).

Another argument raised by proponents of legalization is that merely knowing that one can control the timing and manner of death serves as a form of “psychologic insurance” for dying patients. In other words, knowing there can be an escape from the suffering of illness may alleviate some of the stress associated with the dying processes. It may be (as argued by some proponents of PAS) that many individuals with a terminal illness desire the option to end their lives if certain possible conditions arise, even though the likelihood that they will utilize this option is small.[ 9 ]

Arguments opposing legalization of PAS/euthanasia

Opposition to legalization of PAS and/or euthanasia has come from numerous different perspectives. As frequently noted in the editorial pages of various medical journals, the medical profession is guided by a desire to heal and extend life. This guideline is best exemplified in the Hippocratic Oath which states, “I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice that may cause his death.” Thus, the possibility that a physician may directly hasten the death of a patient – one whom the physician has been presumably treating in an effort to extend and improve life – contradicts the central tenet of the medical profession.

From a mental health perspective, professional psychiatric and psychological training reinforces the view that suicide should be prevented at all costs. Several studies have supported this connection between mental disorder (e.g., depression) and interest in PAS, suggesting that suicidal ideation in terminally ill patients is a manifestation of undiagnosed, untreated mental illness.[ 3 , 4 , 12 ] Consequently, physician compliance with a suffering patient's stated wish for PAS may circumvent the provision of appropriate psychiatric care. Similar arguments have been made regarding pain and physical symptoms, suggesting that requests for PAS may be evidence of inadequate palliative care.[ 13 ] In spite of the fact that improperly managed physical and/or psychiatric symptoms may underlie a patient's wish for hastened death, physicians may unknowingly participate in PAS designed to alleviate precisely these symptoms that possibly could be managed with better palliative care, as opposed to providing proper medical management, if PAS is legalized.

Opponents of PAS additionally posit that individuals of lower socioeconomic classes or other disenfranchised groups will be “coerced,” either directly or indirectly, into requesting PAS as a means of resolving the difficulties posed by their illness. Family members may subtly suggest that death, since inevitable, would be preferable if it occurred sooner rather than later because of the social and financial burdens involved in caring for terminally ill family members. Physicians may view PAS, perhaps because of their own unrecognized feelings (countertransference), as the appropriate and preferable response to a terminal illness and resulting disability. Thus, physicians may be particularly poor at recognizing “irrational” requests for PAS because of their belief that they would not want to live in a condition similar to that of their patients. An even more frightening possibility is that physicians or other health care providers might recommend PAS as an option because the alternative – providing adequate palliative care – is too expensive or difficult to obtain. Thus, patients with poor health insurance or limited financial resources may be “coerced” into requesting PAS by poorly managed or untreated physical and psychological symptoms, perceiving their only options to be either continued suffering or death. Several studies have demonstrated inadequate recognition and treatment of both psychological and physical symptoms,[ 14 ] with symptoms such as depression and anxiety going largely unrecognized in many medically ill patients.[ 15 ] According to a recent review of palliative care in Canada, only 5% of dying patients in Canada receive adequate palliative care.[ 16 ] These and related studies are often cited by opponents of legalization for PAS/euthanasia as evidence that legalization is premature until all dying patients and their families have access to skilled and effective palliative care service.

In response to these concerns, legislators proposing guidelines for PAS have incorporated several mechanisms to minimize the risk that PAS, if legalized, will be misused. These guidelines include (1) a voluntarily request for assistance in dying on the part of the patient, (2) evidence of a terminal illness, and (3) documentation by the primary physician of the reason for the request and efforts made to optimize the patient's care. Opponents, however, suggest that these limitations are more arbitrary than scientific, and they argue that the legal and medical communities will eventually end up on a “slippery slope,” where euthanasia is ultimately legalized as an acceptable practice for a wider patient population, including non-terminal, nonvoluntary patients.[ 17 ] Opponents point to a similar evolution of euthanasia use in The Netherlands where regulations regarding PAS have gradually weakened over the 13 years since this practice was decriminalized. For example, in 1994, the Dutch Supreme Court accepted the argument that a chronic disease is an acceptable basis for euthanasia, even if not terminal, and more recent cases have extended this “right” even to patients without a physical illness.

ATTITUDES TOWARD HASTENED DEATH AND PAS: IMPORTANCE OF PSYCHIATRIC ISSUES

Public interest has been spurred by media attention devoted to Drs. Kevorkian, Quill, Aruna Shanbaug, and others, as well as legal decision, state referenda, and the growing availability of life-extending medical treatments. As a result, both the public and the medical community have openly debated ethical issues relating to end-of-life options. While the US Supreme Court upheld the rights of individual states to prohibit PAS, its decision simultaneously opened the door for professionals to “experiment” with legalization of PAS,[ 9 , 10 ] as has recently occurred in the state of Oregon.[ 18 ] In part spurred by this increased attention, a number of researchers have surveyed attitudes toward euthanasia and PAS among the lay public, medical professionals, and medically ill patients.[ 19 – 31 ] These surveys have demonstrated high rates of public support for legalization of PAS, as well as relatively significant rates of endorsement and even performance of PAS among medical professionals. The proposed guidelines offered to date have all suggested that psychiatric evaluation must comprise critical components of any assessment of a patient's request for PAS.[ 32 – 34 ] Clearly, if PAS is legalized, mental health professionals must play an important role in the evaluation of patients at the end of life who request PAS.[ 16 , 35 – 38 ] Despite the apparent importance of a mental professional's evaluation in assessing requests for PAS, little research has been conducted that has focused on the basis for patients′ interest in hastened death. In their study of physician response to request for PAS/euthanasia, Meier et al .[ 28 ] found that physicians sought mental health consultation for only 2% of their patients who requested PAS or euthanasia. Furthermore, a study by Ganzini et al .[ 25 ] indicated that only 6% of Oregon psychiatrists felt “confident” in their ability to assess whether a psychiatric disorder was impairing the judgment of a patient requesting PAS, despite overwhelming support from psychiatrists for legalization.

EUTHANASIA AND PAS IN CLINICAL PRACTICE

A number of surveys have been published documenting the practice of euthanasia and PAS among health care professionals. For example, an anonymous survey of Washington physicians conducted in 1995 found that 26% of responding physicians had received at least one request for PAS and two-thirds of those physicians had granted such requests.[ 20 ] These statistics suggest that PAS is not a rare event, despite the illegal status (it is also possible that despite the anonymous nature of the survey, some physicians who had in fact carried out these requests were unwilling to acknowledge their actions for fear of repercussions). Even more striking results were reported in a survey of San Francisco area physicians looking after AIDS patients. Slome et al .[ 39 ] found that 98% of respondents had received requests for PAS and that more than half of all responding physicians reported having granted requests for PAS, with some physicians fulfilling dozens of such requests. Moreover, in response to a hypothetical vignette, nearly half of the sample (48%) indicated that they would be likely to grant a hypothetical patient's initial request for PAS.

Perhaps the most striking research to date regarding the use of PAS and euthanasia was a study of critical care nurses conducted by Asch.[ 19 ] This study, based on the results of an anonymous survey, found that 17% of respondents reported having received at least one request for PAS and 11% had granted such a request. Approximately 5% responding nurses acknowledged having hastened a patient's death at the request of the physician, but without the request of the patient or the family (termed “nonvoluntary euthanasia” by some writers). Moreover, 4.7% of the sample indicated that they had hastened a patient's death without the knowledge of or request by the physician. Respondents described having stopped oxygen therapy or increased pain medication in order to hasten death.[ 19 ] Asch suggested that based on the reports of respondent nurses, these actions were done in order to ease the suffering of the patients. The traditional role of nursing in palliative care was cited as the basis for these results. It should also be noted that Asch's controversial study generated considerable response, including many suggestions that methodological issues such as vague wording of questions may make these data unreliable.[ 40 ] Nevertheless, while these data may not accurately indicate the true prevalence of PAS or euthanasia, requests for assistance in dying are clearly not rare events and physicians occasionally grant such requests despite legal prohibitions. Furthermore, because legal restrictions limit the ability of physicians to consult with colleagues regarding how to react to a request for PAS, the appropriateness of patient requests and physician responses is unknown.

In The Netherlands, however, where PAS and euthanasia have been practiced regularly for more than 20 years, data are available regarding the frequency of requests for assistance in dying and the proportion of terminally ill patients whose lives end in this manner. Euthanasia was granted its current status in 1984 after a Dutch Supreme Court decision authorized this practice, provided a number of conditions were met. Specifically, the patient's request for PAS must be considered free, conscious, explicit, and persistent. Both the physician and patient must agree that the patient's suffering is intolerable, and other measures for relief must have been exhausted. A second physician must be consulted and must concur with the decision to assist in ending the patient's life. Finally, all of these conditions must be adequately documented and reported to the governmental body supervising the practice of euthanasia. Because of the availability of such records, several studies have documented the proportion of deaths in The Netherlands in which euthanasia and PAS are implicated (these estimates were adjusted to account for underreporting of euthanasia acknowledged by many Dutch physicians). While reporting on euthanasia and PAS practices in The Netherlands from 1990 to 1995, van der Maas et al .[ 41 ] incorporated both official reports of euthanasia as well as responses to anonymous surveys to estimate the rates of euthanasia and PAS. They concluded that euthanasia and PAS were involved in roughly 4.7% of all deaths in The Netherlands during 1995, a substantial increase over the 2.7% of deaths involving medical assistance reported in a 1991 study.[ 31 ]

Supporters of PAS point to data from The Netherlands as evidence that legalization has not led to widespread abuse or overuse of euthanasia or PAS. However, critics suggest that the 75% increase in deaths involving euthanasia or PAS (from 2.7 to 4.7%) demonstrates a growing tendency toward their more frequent use and thus a greater number of potentially inappropriate cases of euthanasia. Such concerns are clearly reflected in a 1994 Dutch Supreme Court decision in which the right to euthanasia/PAS was extended to include patients′ suffering from chronic illnesses that are not terminal, including mental disorders such as depression, provided the illness is refractory to treatment and causes intolerable suffering. Although the vast majority of requests for PAS from mentally ill individuals have been denied, isolated cases have occurred in which mentally ill Dutch adults have been allowed to receive PAS or euthanasia as a result of this court ruling. This experience has been identified as evidence of the “slippery slope” argument,[ 17 ] in which legalization of PAS is presumed to lead to a gradual widening of the group of patients eligible for this “intervention,” many of whom may not be appropriate candidates (e.g., physically healthy but clinically depressed individuals).

REASONS FOR SEEKING HASTENED DEATH/PAS

A growing body of literature has emerged indicating the types of physical and psychological concerns that may give rise to a desire for hastened death and requests for PAS. Although this literature has not always been consistent, a growing consensus has supported many of the assumptions put forth by the initial advocates and opponents of legalization. Specifically, the issues that have received the broadest empirical support are pain, depression, social support, and cognitive dysfunction.

SUICIDE AMONG THE MEDICALLY ILL

Not all patients who seek a hastened death request assistance from their physicians. Rates of suicide among medically ill populations have been a topic of clinical concern and empirical research for many years prior to the emergence of the PAS debate. This research has generally concluded that depression and suicide among patients with medical illnesses are not particularly common but rather occur more often than in physically healthy populations.[ 12 , 42 , 43 ] These suicide vulnerability factors in cancer and AIDS patients include poor prognosis and advanced disease, depression, hopelessness, loss of control, a sense of helplessness, delirium, fatigue and exhaustion of resources, pre-existing psychopathology, and previous suicide attempts. The role of psychiatric and psychosocial assessment and intervention has been well accepted as a critically important aspect of the care of patients with advanced cancer or AIDS.[ 12 , 42 , 43 ]

HINDUISM – SUICIDE, EUTHANASIA, AND PAS

It has been pointed out that in Hinduism, the word for suicide, atma-gatha, has also the elements of intentionality.[ 44 ]

The intention to voluntarily kill oneself for selfish motives was condemned in Hinduism.[ 45 ] Subjectively, the evil sprang from a product of ignorance and passion; objectively, the evil encompassed the karmic consequences which impeded the progress of liberation. It was in this context that the Dharmasutras vehemently prohibited suicide.[ 45 ]

Nevertheless, Hinduism venerated enlightened people who voluntarily decided their mode of death. Thus, the Pandavas eulogized “Mahaparasthana” or the great journey through their Himalayan sojourn when they walked in pilgrimage, thriving on air and water till they left their bodies one after another.[ 44 ] Crawford[ 45 ] lists fasting, self-immolation, and drowning at holy places as other examples of such venerated deaths. Such deaths by enlightened persons have never been equated with the popular notion of suicide in the Indian tradition. It has been always considered that suicide increases the difficulties in subsequent lives.

Can the Hindu stance as mentioned above be extended to the question of euthanasia? Here, the Indian attitude toward life and death needs special mention.

In the Hindu tradition, death acts as a prefiguration and model, through which the ties that bind man's self or soul to cosmic impermanence can be completely broken and through which ultimate goals of immortality and freedom can be finally and definitely attained.[ 44 ] Crawford[ 45 ] considers “spiritual death” in the Indian context to be synonymous with a “good death,” i.e., the individual must be in a state of calm and equipoise. Crawford[ 45 ] surmises that to ensure such a noble death, the concept of active euthanasia would not be unacceptable to the Indian psyche. However, this view has been criticized by authors[ 46 ] who claim that “spiritual death” or “iccha mrtu” can only be possible when the evolved soul chooses to abandon the body at will. It is also claimed that the evolving soul cannot be equated with mental tranquility as it is at a higher level of consciousness. Thus, though less dogmatic than other religions, Hindus would traditionally remain skeptic in their view about euthanasia. It has been proposed that a strong objection to euthanasia might arise from the Indian concept of Ahimsa. However, even in the Gandhian framework of Ahimsa, violence that is inevitable is not considered as sin.[ 46 ] This emphasizes flexibility of the Indian mind. Hence, though a little skeptic, the Indian mind would not consider the thought of euthanasia and PAS as a sacrilege.

ATTITUDES OF PSYCHIATRISTS TOWARD VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA IN INDIA

A major concern that has been expressed is that the wish of the terminally ill patient requesting PAS may be colored by depression. Hence, psychiatrist's role becomes important for assessing depression in these patients. It is in fact a legal requirement in some places that psychiatric assessment should be mandatory before a patient is granted the permission to undergo PAS.[ 26 ] It is claimed that after being allotted this crucial role, the psychiatrists would act as a gatekeeper in this highly controversial issue. It has also been proposed that since very few psychiatrists would feel confident in detecting depression in the terminally ill, their attitude might color their judgment.[ 25 ]

Though legalization of PAS is still not a very important prerogative for the Indian legislature, we designed a study at the Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi, to see the attitude of Indian psychiatrists about euthanasia, as they might have to act as gatekeepers in PAS issues in the future. Certain interesting findings emerged in this study. Out of the 165 psychiatrists who participated in the study, 99 completed the questionnaire. More than 55% of the subjects favored PAS and believed that it should be legalized, whereas only 28% opposed the idea. The major factors that determined the attitude included deeply held moral values like role of physician is to preserve life, PAS would pressurize for improved palliative care, religious beliefs, and diversion of resources from palliative care. 60% believed that they would consider PAS on themselves in case of terminal suffering. The factors determining their decision to consider PAS would be pain in 70% cases, no hope of recovery in 50% cases, loss of mental faculties in 49% cases, inability to take care of self and poor quality of life in 35% cases each. 60% of the respondents believed that they would not be confident in diagnosing depression in the terminally ill patients during a single interview with the patients if they were called for giving an expert opinion. This is a surprising finding as it implies that more than expert knowledge, the moral principles and previous attitude regarding PAS may influence the judgments of the psychiatrists if they were act as a gatekeeper in the future.

Another sample survey of 200 doctors carried out by the Society for the Right to Die with Dignity in Bombay[ 47 ] also gave a glimpse of what views health professionals in our country held regarding euthanasia and PAS: Ninety percent stated they had the topic in mind and were concerned, while 78% argued that patients should have the right to choose in case of terminal illness; 74% believed that artificial life supports should not be extended when death is imminent, but only 65% stated that they would withdraw life supports; 41% argued that Living Will should be respected, and 31% had reservations about the issue.

THE INDIAN REALITY

It can be argued that in a country where the basic human rights of individuals are often left unaddressed, illiteracy is rampant, more than half the population is not having access to potable water, people die every day due to infections, and where medical assistance and care is less, for the few people, issues related to euthanasia and PAS are irrelevant. However, India is a country of diversities across religious groups, educational status, and cultures. In this background, the debate on euthanasia in India is more confusing as there is also a law in this land that punishes individuals who even try to commit suicide.

The Medical Council of India, in a meeting of its ethics committee in February 2008 in relation to euthanasia opined: Practicing euthanasia shall constitute unethical conduct. However, on specific occasions, the question of withdrawing supporting devices to sustain cardio-pulmonary function even after brain death shall be decided only by a team of doctors and not merely by the treating physician alone. A team of doctors shall declare withdrawal of support system. Such team shall consist of the doctor in-charge of the patient, Chief Medical Officer / Medical Officer in-charge of the hospital, and a doctor nominated by the in-charge of the hospital from the hospital staff or in accordance with the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994.[ 48 ]

In India, euthanasia is a crime. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the attempt to commit suicide and Section 306 of the IPC deals with abetment of suicide – both actions are punishable. Only those who are brain dead can be taken off life support with the help of family members. Likewise, the Honorable Supreme Court is also of the view that that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the constitution does not include the right to die. The court held that Article 21 is a provision guaranteeing protection of life and personal liberty and by no stretch of imagination can extinction of life be read into it. However, various pro-euthanasia organizations, the most prominent among them being the Death with Dignity Foundation, keep on fighting for legalization of an individual's right to choose his own death.

A major development took place in this field on 7 March 2011. The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, allowed passive euthanasia. Refusing mercy killing of Aruna Shaunbag, lying in a vegetative state in a Mumbai Hospital for 37 years, a two-judge bench laid down a set of tough guidelines under which passive euthanasia can be legalized through a high-court monitored mechanism. The court further stated that parents, spouses, or close relatives of the patient can make such a plea to the high court. The chief justices of the high courts, on receipt of such a plea, would constitute a bench to decide it. The bench in turn would appoint a committee of at least three renowned doctors to advise them on the matter.[ 49 ]

Medical science is progressing in India as in the rest of the world, and hence currently we are having devises that can prolong life by artificial means. This may indirectly prolong terminal suffering and may also prove to be very costly for the families of the subject in question. Hence, end-of-life issues are becoming major ethical considerations in the modern-day medical science in India. The proponents and the opponents of euthanasia and PAS are as active in India as in the rest of the world. However, the Indian legislature does not seem to be sensitive to these. The landmark Supreme Court judgment has provided a major boost to pro-euthanasia activists though it is a long way to go before it becomes a law in the parliament. Moreover, concerns for its misuse remain a major issue which ought to be addressed before it becomes a law in our country.

Source of Support: Nil

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Encyclopedia of Hindi Articles

Business ideas
general knowledge
entertainment
Hindi Grammar
Download Books

What is Euthanasia in hindi? – इच्छामृत्यु

Table of Contents

इच्छामृत्यु या Euthanasia

क्या होती है euthanasia या इच्छामृत्यु, euthanasia या इच्छामृत्यु के प्रकार, क्या होता है passive euthanasia, active euthanasia और passive euthanasia में अन्तर, euthanasia या इच्छामृत्यु का इतिहास, euthanasia या इच्छामृत्यु पर आधुनिक विवाद, euthanasia या इच्छामृत्यु कौनसे देशों में वैध है.

दुनिया भर के कई देशों में इच्छामृत्यु को कानूनी रूप से वैध बनाया गया है और इसके लिए एक प्रक्रिया भी निर्धारित की गई है ताकि कोई इस कानून का दुरूपयोग न कर पाए.
अल्बानिया में यदि परिवार के तीन या उससे अधिक सदस्य अपने किसी गंभीर रूप से बीमार पारिवारिक सदस्य के लिए इच्छामृत्यु की मांग करते हैं तो उचित जांच के बाद इसकी स्वीकृति दी जाती है.
इसी तरह आयरलैण्ड में मरीज अगर खुद मरने की इच्छा प्रकट करता है तो उसका उपचार बंद कर दिया जाता है.
मैक्सिको और नार्वे में भी Passive euthanasia को वैध स्वरूप दिया गया है.

भारत और euthanasia

यह भी पढ़ें.

Tokyo Olympic Games 2021- टोक्यो ओलम्पिक खेल 2021

2019 में सरकारी अवकाश – Government Holidays 2019

West Bengal Police make first arrest for crimes against women under Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
Delhi Excise Policy Case: Court extends judicial custody of Manish Sisodia, K Kavitha
VII Surana & Surana and UPES School of Law, National Insolvency Law Moot Court Competition 2024: Register by 20 July
अधिवक्ता चैम्बर के लिए हाईकोर्ट को भेजा पत्र
High Court dismisses reckless allegations against PM Narendra Modi
High Court directs utilization of fine collected from litigant for 'wasting court's time' for planting trees
हाईकोर्ट शिफ्टिंग से जुड़ी सूचना न देने के मामले में सूचना आयुक्त से जवाब तलब
Bihar Govt approaches Supreme Court over 65% quota for Backward Classes
Bombay HC grants bail to accused in ₹1.5 cr Mantralaya Job Scam
Won't comment as matter will be sub-judice in future: CJI DY Chandrachud on New Criminal Laws
हाथरस सत्संग में 121 मौतों का मामला हाईकोर्ट पहुंचा, CBI से जांच कराने की मांग
खुले में मांस बेचने पर हाईकोर्ट नाराज, इस शहर में लाइसेंस रद्द करने का निर्देश
18+ वेबसाइटों पर उम्र सत्यापन के कानून को चुनौती, याचिका में तर्क- यह संवैधानिक अधिकार का उल्लंघन
Hathras Stampede: PILs filed in Supreme Court, Allahabad High Court seeking high-level probe, CBI inquiry
Bombay High Court decides to implead Backward commission in Maratha Reservation plea

Central Acts
Latest News
Corporate Law News
Human Rights News
Intellectual Property News
Did you Know?
International News
हिंदी न्यूज़
Law Firm News
Marriage and Divorce News
Tourism News
World of Petroleum & Natural Gas
Case Analysis Supreme Court High Courts Tribunal Courts
Cheque Bounce News
Legal Services News
Petroleum News

Supreme Court Judgments

Supreme Court

High Court Judgments

Delhi High Court
Allahabad High Court
Bombay High Court
Calcutta High Court
Madras High Court
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Andhra High Court
Chattisgarh High Court
Gauhati High Court
Gujarat High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Jharkhand High Court
Karnataka High Court
Kerala High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Meghalaya High Court
Manipur High Court
Orissa High Court
Patna High Court
Rajasthan High Court
Sikkim High Court
Tripura High Court
Telangana High Court
Uttarakhand High Court
Arbitration
Conciliation

Campus Buzz

Call for Papers
Conferences & Seminars
Courses & Workshops
Debate Competitions
Essay Competitions
Fellowships
Fests, MUNs and Other Competitions
International Opportunities
Internships
Moot Court Competitions
Scholarships
Legal Documents
Legal Forms for Advocates
Legal Dictionary
SC Collegium Resolutions
Law Commission of India Reports
NCRB Reports
Justice Verma Committee Report, 2013
Justice BN Srikrishna Report on Institutionalisation of Arbitration
Legal Maxims
Web Links Directory

Legal Education

Law School Entrance Exams
Law Schools and Colleges in India
Overseas Law Schools
Careers in Law

Circulars & Notices

RBI Circulars
RBI Notices
SEBI Circulars
SEBI Notices
MCA Circulars
MCA Notices
Supreme Court Calendar 2023
Supreme Court Bar Association
Supreme Court Advocate-On-Record
All High Courts Calendar
High Courts Portals
Judicial Exam Notice Board
Judicial Services Exam Question Papers
Bar Councils
Bar Associations

Recent News

Euthanasia: should it be legalized in india.

The Author, Urvashi Trivedi, is a 2nd-year, BA.LLB student at University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun. She is currently interning with LatestLaws.com.

Introduction

The term “euthanasia” comes from the liaison of the two Greek words: “eu” and “thantos”, meaning good and death, respectively. It is therefore considered the practice of ending an individual’s life of suffering and misery caused due to a condition that is beyond repair or a terminal illness, through suspension of medical facilities or injection, in order to rid the person off of the intolerable pain. It is often termed as an act of intentional taking of a person’s life in a painless manner, which is not worth living or, ‘mercy killing’ where the individual is set free off the irremediable life condition of suffering and pain.

To understand the complexity of the concept of euthanasia, one must know the classification of euthanasia and the terms related to it.

Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS), wherein the doctor knowingly provides medical assistance to an individual to end their life, who is likely to be experiencing persistent and intolerable suffering and pain. The physician provides for a complete analysis of the medical condition and determines the most painless and effective method of dying.

Voluntary Euthanasia, when the individual wishes through a conscious decision of ending their help with the help of another. It requires full consent and awareness of the concept and process.

Non-Voluntary Euthanasia, whereas the decision of ending an individual’s life is taken by another, like a family member or your partner. This takes place when the individual is in a state of permanent unconsciousness and incapacitated beyond treatment.

Active Euthanasia means where the doctor can directly end an individual’s life. The other names given to this process are, ‘Positive Euthanasia’ or ‘Aggressive Euthanasia’. The doctor may directly intervene and prescribe a painless method to end an individual’s life. The main element under this remains consent of the individual whose sufferings are irremediable and endless. This is a quicker method of dying through a lethal and high dose of drug or by injecting a lethal drug.

Passive Euthanasia or ‘Negative Euthanasia’ or ‘Non-Aggressive Euthanasia’ is the practice of intentionally causing the death of an individual by withdrawing the necessary and essential care, food or water. It is an intentional discontinuation which also implies the removal of artificial life support facilities. It is considered as a slow killer and is more comfortable than the active method. It is only aided when the individual no longer remains mentally and physically alert. There are medical tests and scales like Glasgow Coma Scales (GCS) to ensure the mental vegetative state of the individual. In many countries and states, this is a legal right provided to individuals usually on medical life support.

In the ancient, or often considered traditional times, euthanasia was labelled as a practice against the culture, religion and even the ethical human values. The transition from it being considered a malpractice to a legal right, was due to the term and extension of the practice of “Palliative Care”. The medical practice of providing care to those patients who suffer from any terminal illness. Under this, the patient’s needs and wants are taken care of and the process of decay and prolonged death is made comfortable in any way possible.

Every individual is born with a basic shield of human rights and amongst all such rights, Right to Life is the most essential right. It is the basic and fundamental right which states that every human being has the right to live and cannot be killed by another being. This right is the umbrella right under which other rights get their light and backing.

Chronology of the Legal Advancements

Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides this right to every person. Soon enough the people of the state began to question, “whether the right to life also entails the right to die?”. This started a massive debate and deliberations on the concept and its relevance in the Indian context. The two cases, M.S. Dubal v. State of Maharashtra (1986) and Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of AP (1987), dealt with the positive and negative aspect of the rights given to the people and the violative nature of certain articles, respectively. Both the cases contradict one another on the “Right of Life includes Right to Die” topic.

In the case of M.S. Dubal v State of Maharashtra (1986), the conflict took place on the negative and positive aspects of the rights that were provided to the people. The court ruled that Right to Life under article 21 also contains the Right not to live.

The Court observed that “ those who make the suicide attempt on account of the mental disorders require psychiatric treatment and not confinement in the prison cells where their condition is bound to worsen leading to further mental derangement. Those on the other hand who make the suicide attempt on account of acute physical ailments, incurable diseases, torture or decrepit physical state induced by old age or disablement need nursing homes and not prisons to prevent them from making the attempts again .”

The submission made in the court regarding the right to live with dignity was as follows,

“By the term 'life' as here used something more is meant than mere animal existence. The inhibition against its deprivation extends to all these limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body or amputation of an arm or leg or the putting out of an eye or the destruction of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world...by the term liberty, as used in the provision something more is meant than mere freedom from physical restraint or the bonds of a prison.”

While in the latter case, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh contradicted the former and established the constitutional validity of the Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalized the offence of suicide, meaning taking one’s own life.

This debate was furthered in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), which gave the verdict in favor of the motion and legalized assisted suicide. It was later contradicted and overruled in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), where it was held that Article 21 cannot include right to die or be killed.

In the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the five-judge bench, headed by Justice J.S. Verma, brought the Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 back and the judgement that was passed stated that, under the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the part of Right To Live only includes the aspect of life and thereof and nowhere includes the aspect of right to die. It was because of this particular case that passive Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide were made unlawful.

The debate over this topic continued amongst the people on various platforms and soon in the path breaking judgment in the case of Aruna Shaunbaug v. Union of India (2011), the Supreme Court with its 5 judge bench remarked the relevance of the concept of euthanasia and the right to life can be interpreted as the right to a life of dignity and worth. This much awaited judgment which in itself was a hard battle, helped push the awareness quotient on this topic and the debate for the legalization of passive euthanasia thus entered into our society, but with the exception of it being practiced only on terminally ill patients and through the removal of medical life support. The recent case of Aruna Shaunbaug generated a plethora of opinions and also made us look towards the status of the law in other countries and states which have legalized the practice.

In furtherance to such landmark cases, the Law Commission gave various recommendations in its reports time to time.

In the 42 nd Report in 1971, it was stated that after reviewing Manu’s code and the law commentaries on it, it held that the commission of suicide was considered valid when the people was diseased and was living under miserable life conditions. It referred to the Vedic texts which upheld the values and importance of the persons who got rid of his own self as someone who would find salvation as they left the earthly pleasures. It considered the legal provisions of suicide as harsh and unjustifiable.

Later in the year 1997, the 156 th Law Commission’s report held the validity of the criminalization of the offence of suicide and gave the credit to medical science and law. It supported the judgement given in the Gian Kaur case and the validity of the Penal section and supported the argument further with the prevalent societal evils like drug and trafficking and the existence of terrorism and those who attempted suicide under these events.

In 2008, the Law Commission in its 210 th Report recommended the decriminalization of the section which punishes though who commit the offence of attempt to suicide, which is section 309 of the IPC. It also proposed amendments to the IPC.

In 2017, the nation welcomed its Mental Healthcare Act , repealing the previous act and de-criminalizing the “attempt to suicide” section. Section 115 of the act states:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 309 of the IPC, any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under this Code; and

The government is duty bound to provide care, treatment and rehabilitation to such a person in order to reduce the risk of recurrence of attempt to commit suicide.”

As every individual has the right to live, they also have the right to form guided and well-aided opinions on matters that concern the most crucial decision of their lives. As citizens of a growing and developing nation, we must be aware and well guided through the examples set by other nations as well as their mistakes. When we look at the rate and usage of the medical facility of practicing euthanasia, we must understand that in this day and age, the misuse of such a practice is more likely than its benefits. To be able to equip the medical institutions with the facilities of euthanasia is a great risk as a collective effort. For a nation like India, it is a slippery slope to tread on as this practice may be done by those who are corrupted or by the weaker minds. It may become a tool in hands of the corrupt to demand and misguide a person’s will and consent in the name of “living will” or “PAS” or even “non-voluntary euthanasia”. As the practice not only encompasses the physical state of an individual but also the emotional and psychological aspects, there needs to be a greater sense of understanding before allowing active euthanasia or ‘ living will’.

It is also considered medically unethical and it goes against the notions of nursing, healing and care giving oaths that medical officials undertake. To understand the dilemma of the family and the doctors while prescribing passive euthanasia is a painful and necessary task to the rid the person off of the futile resources and time without any assurance to the normalcy of life in the future. It is the level of mental consciousness that determines whether the individual receives the consent for passive killing. Therefore, such a decision is far more risk bearing and complex when the person is mentally alert.

To better the medical facilities in India with regard to Palliative Care of the terminally ill people can be an alternative approach. In other countries where such practices are legal have their rules and exceptions. In Netherlands and Belgium, it is permitted only in the case of terminally ill children and in Switzerland it is allowed only in the case of advanced malignancy or intractable pain and suffering.

Similarly, euthanasia means the practice of ending the life of a person who is suffering from terminal illness which is irremediable or has persistent pain or suffering and is not a life worth living. Therefore, the question to be understood and addressed are many. The debate remains ongoing on the subject and the factors that one must consider while deciding whether their life is not worth living any longer. The limelight remains on the allowance of active euthanasia and its implications. Whether the approval to this would bring justice to the people suffering or become the cause of the sufferings in the long run. It remains a conflict between the social norms and values, medical needs of the patient and his will and consent. It questions the standards and scales which define and measure the quality of a persons’ life and whether such life can be ended on the individual’s consent.

It is proven that euthanasia provides a way to relieve the individual from the mammoth of sufferings as though they are alive on a burning pyre of intolerable pain. It gives the right to the beings to evaluate their essence of life and live and end it in a dignified manner without any force. The underlying principle of this is the consent and choice of the person. The battle of euthanasia as a legal remedy is tough and complex. It needs careful examination of the status quo of India, the mindset of the people, the acceptance and the presence of required equipment. If at all, it were to be legalized in India, there would be a requirement of stringent and well-structured laws that would guarantee the consent and will of the individual, monitoring the failure of all medical resources and methods to revive the person, intentions of the caregivers and medical officials, proper ways to ensure that no abuse of the law takes place and the review of circumstances under which the euthanasia is to be allowed.

References-

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/787/Euthanasia-in-India.html - Euthanasia in India
https://www.britannica.com/topic/euthanasia - Euthanasia
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/should-euthanasia-be-allowed/article22524514.ece - Should euthanasia be allowed?
https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/euthanasia-india-team-latest-laws/ - 'All about Euthanasia in India’
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320054647_Should_Euthanasia_be_Legalised_in_India- Should we legalize Euthanasia?
M.S Dubal v. State of Maharastra, CrLJ 549 AIR 1987
Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of A.P, CrLJ 549 AIR 1988
P.Rathinam v. Union of India, 3 scc 394, AIR 1994
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2 scc 648, AIR 1996
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 454 s 140

Picture Source :

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2024

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2024', Apply Now!

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

Publish Your Article

Campus Ambassador

Media Partner

Sample details

Words: 3760

Euthanasia in India

Introduction-: Euthanasia means mercy killing, it is a modern terminology to the word ‘moksha. ’ It is derived from Greek words ‘eu’ meaning good or well and ‘thanatos’ meaning death. In the case, M. S. Dabal vs. State of Maharashtra the supreme court held that -:“Mercy killing is nothing but homicide, whatever the circumstances in which it is affected. Unless it is specifically accepted it cannot be offences.

Indian Penal Code further punishes not only abetment of homicide, but also abetment of suicide” When a person is suffering from an ailment from a very long time which has no cure and that person is given the permission to end his life in order to relieve pain and suffering is called ‘Euthanasia. ’ For a common man, when life becomes far more painful and unbearable than death, then it is very normal for him to desire death. Euthanasia is also termed as ‘dayamaran’. Some people as the great saints or heroic persons embrace ‘echchamaran’ or willful death, when they feel that they have achieved the purpose of their lives.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

There are different types of voluntary deaths in our country like the ‘sati’, ‘johars’, ‘samadhi’, ‘prayopaveshan’ (starving to death) etc. Euthanasia is categorised in different types-: 1. Voluntary 2. Non-voluntary 3. Involuntary Then its further devided into 1. Passive euthanasia 2. Active euthanasia 1. voluntary euthanasia-: When the person who is killed has requested to be killed. 2. non-voluntary euthanasia-: When the person who is killed made no request and gave no consent. 3. involuntary euthanasia-: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary. . passive euthanasia-: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water. 5. active euthanasia-: Intentionally causing a person’s death by performing an action such as by giving a lethal injection. But, there is no euthanasia unless the death is intentionally caused by what was done or not done. Thus, some medical actions that are often labeled “passive euthanasia” are no form of euthanasia, since the intention to take life is lacking.

These acts include not commencing treatment that would not provide a benefit to the patient, withdrawing treatment that has been shown to be ineffective, too burdensome or is unwanted, and the giving of high doses of pain-killers that may endanger life, when they have been shown to be necessary. All those are part of good medical practice, endorsed by law, when they are properly carried out. Voluntary death from the historical and philosophical perspective-: Hinduism and Buddhism allow prayopaveshan since it is a non violent, calm and much time taking way of ending life and it occurs by starving oneself to death at the right time, i. . – when the person has achieved his aims in life and finished performing all the duties and responsibilities that were assigned to him and his body becomes a burden. Prayopaveshan is for people who are content with their lives. While on the other hand, suicide is a sudden act and associated with the feelings of anger, frustration, depression, i. e. – people who are not content with their lives have a tendency to commit suicide which is why it is not allowed by any of these religions.

Though there is a division of views regarding euthanasia in Buddhism, the most common view is that voluntary euthanasia should not be permitted. Again there are two views of Hinduism regarding euthanasia which are contradictory, one is supporting euthanasia as a moral deed and another is considering euthanasia as a bad deed which disturbs the life and death cycle. Ancient Indian philosophical tradition also justifies the idea of a man willing his own death. As per Hindu mythology Lord Rama and his brothers took ‘jal samadhi’ in River Saryu near Ayodhya.

Ancient Indian history also tells that Lord Buddha and Lord Mahavir attained death by seeking it. Jainism gives full consent to its followers who want to embrace death mostly by fasting, if they believe that ‘moksha’ can be achieved that way. Muslim, Christian and Jewish laws are all against suicide and even euthanasia. According to these religions , all human life is sacred since it is given by God, and human beings should not interfere in this. The Roman Catholic Church regards euthanasia as morally wrong since it has always taught how important the commandment ‘you shall not kill’ is.

The idea of willful death is traceable to Socrates, Plato, and Stoics in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy as well. In ancient Greece and Rome, helping others to put end to their lives was also permitted in certain situations. Indian constitution & euthanasia-: From the moment of his birth, a person is clothed with basic human rights. Article-21 of the Indian Constitution states that – ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law’ It provides for Right to life which is one of the basic as well as fundamental right without which all rights cannot be enjoyed.

Right to life means a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that such human being has the right not to be killed by another human being. In M. S Dubal vs. State of Maharastra, the Bombay High Court held that right to life under article 21 of the Indian Constitution includes ‘right to die’. On the other hand in Chenna Jagadeeswar vs. State of AP, the AP High Court said that right to die is not a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However in P. Rathinam’s case Supreme Court of India observed that the ‘right to live’ includes ‘right not to live’ i. e right to die or to terminate one’s life.

But again in Gain Kaur vs State of Punjab, a five member bench overruled the P. Rathainam’s case and held that right to life under Article 21 does not include Right to die or right to be killed. ‘Right to life’ including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such right up to the end of natural life. This may include the right of a dying man to die with dignity. But the ‘right to die with dignity’ is not to be confused with the ‘right to die’ an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life. Thus the concept of right to life is central to the debate on the issue of Euthanasia.

One of the controversial issues in the recent past has been the question of legalizing the right to die or Euthanasia. Euthanasia is controversial since it involves the deliberate termination of human life. Patient suffering from terminal diseases are often faced with great deal of pain as the diseases gradually worsens until it kills them and this may be so frightening for them that they would rather end their life than suffering it. So the question is whether people should be given assistance in killing themselves, or whether they should be left to suffer the pain cause by terminal illness.

Difference Between Euthanasia And Suicide-: There is a conceptual distinction between suicide and euthanasia. In a suicide a man voluntarily kills himself by stabbing, poisoning or by any other way. No doubt in suicide one intentionally attempts to take his life. It is an act or instance of intentionally killing oneself mostly due to depression or various reasons such as frustration in love, failure in examinations or in getting a good job etc. on the other hand, in euthanasia there is an action of some other person to bring to an end the life of a third person.

In euthanasia, a third person is either actively or passively involved i. e he aids or abets the killing of another person. It is important to mention in this context that there is also a difference between ‘assisted suicide’ and ‘euthanasia’. Assisted suicide is an act which intentionally helps another to commit suicide, for example by providing him with the means to do so. When it is a doctor who helps a patient to kill himself (by providing a prescription for lethal medication) it is a ‘physician assisted suicide’.

Thus, in assisted suicide the patient is in complete control of the process that leads to death because he/she is the person who performs the act of suicide. The other person simply helps (for example, providing the means for carrying out the action). On the other hand euthanasia may be active such as when a doctor gives a lethal injection to a patient or passive such as when a doctor removes life support system of the patient. The difference between euthanasia and suicide is clearly differentiated in the case Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India,J. Lodha clearly said in this case. Suicide by its very nature is an act of self-killing or self-destruction, an act of terminating one’s own act and without the aid or assistance of any other human agency. Euthanasia or mercy killing on the other hand means and implies the intervention of other human agency to end the life. Mercy killing thus is not suicide and an attempt at mercy killing is not covered by the provisions of Section 309. The two concepts are both factually and legally distinct. Euthanasia or mercy killing is nothing but homicide whatever the circumstances in which it is affected. Position of Indian Law on Euthanasia In case of physicians, there is an intention to cause death of patient, hence he can be charged under clause (1) of section 300 of I. P. C but where there is valid consent of the deceased, exception 5 of section 300 is attracted and thus the act of the physician is considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Part I of section 304. In case of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, the act of physician can be fall under section 88 and 92 of IPC as there is an intention to causing death of a patient for his benefit.

And other relatives who are aware of such intention either of the patient or of the physician can be charged under section 202 of IPC. Global Status of Euthanasia-: There had been many debates going on the issue of legalizing euthanasia in all the parts of the world, it is legal in some countries and in some it amounts to murder. The Northern Territory of Australia became the first country to legalize euthanasia by passing the Rights of the Terminally ILL Act, 1996. Netherlands is the first country in the world to legalise both euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2002.

According to the penal code of the Netherlands killing a person on his request is punishable with twelve years of imprisonment or fine and also a assisting a person to commit suicide is also punishable by imprisonment up to three years or fine. In spite of this provision, the courts of Netherlands have come to interpret the law as providing a defence to charges of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. The defence allowed is that of necessity. In Canada, patients have the right to refuse life sustaining treatments but they do not have the right to demand for euthanasia or assisted suicide. In U. S. A. there is a distinction between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. While active euthanasia is prohibited but physicians are not held liable if they withhold or withdraw the life sustaining treatment of the patient either on his request or at the request of patient’s authorized representative. Euthanasia has been made totally illegal by the United States Supreme Court. Euthanasia is illegal in United Kingdom but on November 5, 2006 Britain Royal College of obstructions and gynaecologists submitted a proposal to the Nuffield Counsel of Bioethics calling for consideration of permitting the euthanasia of disabled new-born.

According to Article 115 of Swiss Penal Code, suicide is not a crime and assisting suicide is a crime if only if the motive is selfish. Aruna Shanbaug Case-: Aruna Shanbaug, who was working as a nurse at KEM Hospital, was assaulted on the night of November 27, 1973 by a ward boy. He sodomised Aruna after strangling her with a dog chain. The attack left Aruna blind, paralysed and speechless and she went into a coma from which she has never come out. She is cared for by KEM hospital nurses and doctors. The woman does not want to live any more.

The doctors have told her that there is no chance of any improvement in her state. Her next friend (a legal term used for a person speaking on behalf of someone who is incapacitated) describes Shanbaug: “her bones are brittle. Her skin is like ‘Paper Mache’ stretched over a skeleton. Her wrists are twisted inwards; her fingers are bent and fisted towards her palms, resulting in growing nails tearing into the fles very often. Her teeth are decayed and giving her immense pain. Food is completely mashed and given to her in semisolid form.

She chokes on liquids and is in a persistent vegetative state. ” So, she, through her ‘next friend’ Pinki Virani, decided to move the SC with a plea to direct the KEM Hospital not to force feed her. And on 16th December 2009, the Supreme Court of India admitted the woman’s plea to end her life. The Supreme Court bench compromising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices A K Ganguly and B S Chauhan agreed to examine the merits of the petition and sought responses from the Union Government, Commissioner of Mumbai Police and Dean of KEM Hospital.

S. C. pronounced its judgement on 07th March, 2011 on the plea filed by Aruna Shaunbag’s friend Pinky Virani for passive euthanasia to Aruna as she had been mentally dead from past 38 yrs. S. C. rejected the plea and praised K. E. M. hospital for taking care of Aruna for the past 38 yrs. S. C. said that Aruna should live and wait for her natural death to take her life. S. C. bench presided by Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra made passive euthanasia legal in India but said that active euthanasia is still illegal.

It is a landmark judgement passed by the S. C. which would leave a great impact on the society. The bench said that the State H. C. has jurisdiction to try such case and euthanasia can only be performed after the order given by the concerned H. C. Bench also stated that before coming to the conclusion the H. C. will take advice from a panel of 3 doctors who will tell about the condition of the patient and whether it is so much worse that the best resort is to kill that person.

It also stated that a petition for passive euthanasia can only be filed by a close relative of the patient and not by any other person, it also stated that this judgement would be treated as law till Parliament passes any law on the issue. The S. C. also showed concern that this law can be misused so laid the guidelines stated as above. Controversies on Euthanasia-: “I will give no deadly medicine if asked, nor suggest any such counsel”. -The Hippocratic Oath This oath is taken by doctors to serve their profession in a dignified manner and it tells us that they are made to save the life of others, not to take the life of anyone. Euthanasia’ is the word for ‘mercy killing’ or ‘to end the life’. If a person is suffering from any chronic disease since 30 years or 40 years and if he or she wants to end up his or her life, should he would be given permission to end up his or her life just because he is suffering from 30 years, he is not able to do anything with himself. Can law become so rude that it would allow any person to end up his or her life, it’s a doctors responsibility to search a medicine for the patient for destroying that disease. The debate on euthanasia , was started in 1870.

It was practised in Ancient Greece and Rome. It was supported by Socrates, Plato and was opposed by Hippocrates, Judeo-Christian. So, we are seeing that opinion on euthanasia is different among countries to countries person to person and group to group. The people are supporting euthanasia because the pain which they are having is unbearable or they see people in a very critical condition for 30 years and understand their pain or suffering. Yes, it is very difficult for the one who is on the verge of death to remain in a vegetative state for 30-40 years.

In that condition I am in favour of Euthanasia. But what about Article21 of Indian Constitution, as it provides protection of life and personal liberty. It is the heart and soul of Indian Constitution. It is the main angle of the golden triangle of Indian Constitution which includes Article 14 and 19 of Indian Constitution. It is the most important question that whether Euthanasia should be incorporated in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. There are not any specific laws on this. If we see the Maruty Sripati’s and P.

Rathinam’s case, both Bombay High Court and Supreme Court held that Right to Life includes Right to Die. I could say that somehow these decisions were correct as Article 21 gives Right to Life with human dignity and if a person are not in a position to live proper life that means he is not in a position to live properly nor he is in a position to die likewise as a normal human being or his present position would not get change after being change in the medical science then he has some right to die with dignity. But it does mean that everyone who is in a vegetative state would start demanding Euthanasia.

I just want to light on this particular point that Euthanasia would be allowed on the individual merit of the case and if this is not there then there is no protection of life and everyone would start committing suicide and their relatives and the aggrieved will start defence of Euthanasia. If we see the different side of the same coin then a person is helping or abets another person to kill himself then it is called death with consent. · The Supreme Court in Gian Kaur’s case overruled the decision of Supreme Court in P.

Rathinam’s case and held that the Right to Life does not include Right to Die. The Court said that committing suicide is an unnatural termination of life. I somehow agree with this point that committing suicide or an attempt to commit suicide is an offence under sections 306 and 309 of Indian Penal Code and it has to be an offence because committing suicide is not the proper way of ending life just because a person has some problems in his or her life and if he or she can solve all those problems by making few efforts.

The concept of Euthanasia is entirely different from the concept of suicide. Euthanasia is for those people who fight everyday for survival and suicide is whims and fancies of the individual. Now, I want to discuss both the aspects for & against-: Arguments for Euthanasia: # It provides a way to relieve extreme pain # It provides a way of relief when a person’s quality of life is low # Frees up medical funds to help other people # It is another case of freedom of choice Arguments against Euthanasia: # Euthanasia devalues human life Euthanasia can become a means of health care cost containment # Physicians and other medical care people should not be involved in directly causing death # There is a “slippery slope” effect that has occurred where euthanasia has been first been legalized for only the terminally ill and later laws are changed to allow it for other people or to be done non-voluntarily. Conclusion-: if a person is suffering from incurable desease & he cant become healthy then to give a relief to the person by killing him is an humanity.

Euthanasia is totally different from suicide and homicide. Under the Indian penal code, attempt to commit suicide is punishable under section 309 of IPC and also abetment to suicide is punishable under section 306 of IPC. A person commits suicide for various reasons like marital discord, dejection of love, failure in the examination, unemployment etc. but in euthanasia these reasons are not present. Euthanasia means putting a person to painless death in case of incurable diseases or when life became purposeless or opeless as a result of mental or physical handicap. It is also differs from homicide. In murder, the murderer has the intention to cause harm or cause death in his mind. But in euthanasia although there is an intention to cause death, such intention is in good faith. A doctor apply euthanasia when the patient, suffering from a terminal disease, is in an irremediable conditions or has no chance to recover or survival as he suffering from a painful life or the patient has been in coma for 20/30 years like Aruna Shanbaug.

Therefore it is suggested that penal provision regarding attempts to commit suicide and abetment to suicide should be preserved in the interests of the society as a general rule but euthanasia (voluntary) should be permitted in certain circumstances as an exception to the general rule. Thus Indian Parliament should enact a law regarding euthanasia which enables a doctor to end the painful life of a patient suffering from an incurable disease with the consent of the patient.

Parliament should lay down some circumstances under which euthanasia will be lawful as bellow; A) consent of the patient must be obtained, B) Failure of all medical treatments or when the patient, suffering from a terminal disease, is in an irremediable conditions or has no chance to recover or survival as he suffering from a painful life or the patient has been in coma for 20/30 years, C) The economic or financial condition of the patient or his family is very low, D) Intention of the doctor must not be to cause harm,

E) Proper safeguard must be taken to avoid abuse of it by doctors, F) Any other circumstances relevant to the particular case Thus, Euthanasia could be legalized, but the laws would have to be very stringent. Every case will have to be carefully monitored taking into consideration the point of views of the patient, the relatives and the doctors. But whether Indian society is mature enough to face this, as it is a matter of life and death, is yet to be seen. Bibliography-: 1. Articles of euthanasia from law letter magine 2.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/euthanasia-in-india/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

Natural Disaster
Global Warming
Temperature
Natural Resources

Check more samples on your topics

Vibori in india: the all india trinamul congress.

Essays Database

The All India Trinamul Congress pulled off a landslide victory in a historic decision in West Bengal by defeating the Communist Party of India (Marxist) led Left Front after 34 years of the Left's rule in the state. Apart from the State of Bengal, Assam's election results reaffirmed people's faith in the erstwhile Chief Minister

Euthanasia Should Be Legalized in Thailand Sample

Right to life

The issue of mercy killing or clemency violent death is a subject of broad argument in the universe for a long clip. Particularly in the state that euthanasia is illegal as Thailand. It is an of import issue because it involves morality. attitude and effects feelings of other people in society. Although it argues that

Euthanasia Abstract Research Paper

Abstract In my research paper, I will be discussing the question: should euthanasia by legalized? I will advocate for Its legalization and provide substantial evidence to support my standpoint. I will also mention at least one argument from the opposition in hopes to avoid bias. In terms of the law, euthanasia, or assisted suicide, ought

Legalizing Euthanasia Position Paper

Medical ethics

Euthanasia Debate continues over the issue of euthanasia long after the court decision concerning Dry. Sovereign. Sovereign has been acquitted of murder in his assisted suicide cases and the court has created precedent for the legalization of selecting death. Euthanasia does take place and is selected voluntarily by patients who are in great pain due

Euthanasia a Solution or a Crime

Death is a foregone decision. Every person deserves a choice to live or die. The natural fear people have of suffering and dying and when cure is no longer likely, there are only two alternatives: euthanasia or unbearable pain. People who wish to retain their dignity and choices at the end of life should have

Voluntary Passive Euthanasia

Right to die

The fundamental question about euthanasia: Whether it is a libertarian movement for human freedom and the right of choice, or an aggressive drive to exterminate the weak, the old, and the different, this question can now be answered. It is both. " Richard Finesse, Dutch cardiologist What is euthanasia? How does it work? Is it

The Issue of Euthanasia is one of Heated Debate

There has been a lot of media coverage lately on euthanasia, specifically physician-assisted suicide. However, this focus has shifted attention away from other forms of euthanasia where life-sustaining measures are not provided to terminally ill or comatose individuals. In the United States, there is an ongoing debate and legal obstacles surrounding the creation of regulations

Should we legalise voluntary active Euthanasia?

Is life really not worth it? Would you take someone’s life away when you cannot return it? Then maybe you should think again. It is not worth risking it! It is not just dying with dignity, there is more to it. Life is more valuable than you can imagine and is definitely not affordable. Hope,

The Rogerian Argument the Fact Whether Euthanasia Is Right or Wrong

Is it right to "justifiably kill" people? This is the question that is commonly associated with euthanasia. However, the dilemma is much deeper than this simple question. There are two types of euthanasia, passive and active. Passive euthanasia is the process of allowing a patient to die on their own without medication or direct action

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Translation of "euthanasia" into Hindi

इच्छामृत्यु, इच्छा-मृत्यु, इच्छा मृत्यु are the top translations of "euthanasia" into Hindi. Sample translated sentence: Forswearing euthanasia and abortion and invoking a deity were even less common, and vowing to have no sexual contact with patients formed part of only 3 percent of the declarations used by the schools surveyed. ↔ साथ ही, देवी-देवताओं से बिनती करना और भी कम हो गया है। इसके अलावा, जिन स्कूलों का सर्वे लिया गया था, उनमें इस्तेमाल की गयी शपथ में से सिर्फ 3 प्रतिशत में वादा किया गया कि मरीज़ों के साथ किसी भी तरह का लैंगिक संबंध नहीं रखा जाएगा।

The practice of killing a human being or animal for humane reasons, especially one suffering greatly or experiencing poor quality of life. [..]

English-Hindi dictionary

इच्छामृत्यु.

practice of killing a human being or animal

इच्छा-मृत्यु

practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering

इच्छा मृत्यु

Less frequent translations

पशुओं का नाश
यूथेनासिया{लाइलाज~रोग~के~शिकारी~को~बिना~दर्द~दिये~मारना}

Show algorithmically generated translations

Automatic translations of " euthanasia " into Hindi

Translations of "euthanasia" into hindi in sentences, translation memory.

Hindi to English
English to Hindi
Spell Checker

Euthanasia मीनिंग : Meaning of Euthanasia in Hindi - Definition and Translation

हिन्दी से अंग्रेजी
Spell Check

euthanasia Meaning
Similar words
Opposite words
Sentence Usages

EUTHANASIA MEANING IN HINDI - EXACT MATCHES

Definition of Euthanasia

the act of killing someone painlessly (especially someone suffering from an incurable illness)

euthanasia in Word of the Day:

Related similar words (synonyms):, information provided about euthanasia:.

Euthanasia meaning in Hindi : Get meaning and translation of Euthanasia in Hindi language with grammar,antonyms,synonyms and sentence usages by ShabdKhoj. Know answer of question : what is meaning of Euthanasia in Hindi? Euthanasia ka matalab hindi me kya hai (Euthanasia का हिंदी में मतलब ). Euthanasia meaning in Hindi (हिन्दी मे मीनिंग ) is इच्छामृत्यु.English definition of Euthanasia : the act of killing someone painlessly (especially someone suffering from an incurable illness)

Explore ShabdKhoj

ShabdKhoj Type

Meaning summary.

Synonym/Similar Words : mercy killing , assisted suicide

👇 SHARE MEANING 👇

IMAGES

Euthanasia in India Essay
Euthanasia in India
Euthanasia in India Essay
ESSAY ON EUTHANASIA IN INDIA/WBCS MAINS COMPULSORY ENGLISH/ভারতবর্ষে
Essay on euthanasia in english
Euthanasia and the Right to Die in India

VIDEO

ESSAY: Euthanasia
Essay on Students Life in Hindi
Euthanasia : Constitution & Court Cases
Essay on Mahatma Gandhi in Hindi Essay Writing/महात्मा गांधी पर निबंध
Should Euthanasia be legalized in India? #bharat #facts #currentaffair #shorts
write an essay on drug addiction in hindi

COMMENTS

Essay on Euthanasia in India in Hindi
Essay on Euthanasia in India in Hindi, Long and Short essay and paragraph of euthanasia in hindi language for all students, निबंध ( Hindi Essay) अनुच्छेद
विशेष/द बिग पिक्चर: इच्छामृत्यु (Passive Euthanasia) और Living Will का
विशेष/द बिग पिक्चर: इच्छामृत्यु (Passive Euthanasia) और Living Will का अधिकार
क्या इच्छामृत्यु की अनुमति दे दी जानी चाहिये?
क्या इच्छामृत्यु की अनुमति दे दी जानी चाहिये? 29 Jan 2018; 15 min read
Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia
Does India allow Assisted Suicide or Euthanasia? In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia in 2018, stating that it was a matter of 'living will'.; According to the judgment, an adult in his conscious mind is permitted to refuse medical treatment or voluntarily decide not to take medical treatment to embrace death in a natural way, under certain ...
Euthanasia in India Essay
Euthanasia in India Essay: The Supreme Court of India passed an order in a landmark judgment that allowed passive euthanasia in India.This order declared the fundamental right of a patient to die with dignity. According to the reports of some top news reports in India, a five-judge bench of the apex court led by the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India, and other Justices issued a guideline ...
Euthanasia: An Indian perspective
Euthanasia: An Indian perspective. In our society, the palliative care and quality of life issues in patients with terminal illnesses like advanced cancer and AIDS have become an important concern for clinicians. Parallel to this concern has arisen another controversial issue-euthanasia or "mercy -killing" of terminally ill patients.
What is Euthanasia in hindi?
Euthanasia जिसे हिंदी में इच्छा मृत्यु की संज्ञा दी जाती है. एक प्रक्रिया है जिसमें अत्यधिक कारूणिक और दयनीय स्थिति में जीवित व्यक्ति को अपने प्राणों का अंत ...
Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a multifaceted topic that requires careful consideration of ethical, moral, and legal factors. Understanding the types of euthanasia, the distinctions between active and passive forms, the history of euthanasia, and the status of passive euthanasia in India provides valuable insights into this complex issue.
Euthanasia: Should it be legalized in India?
Voluntary Euthanasia, when the individual wishes through a conscious decision of ending their help with the help of another. It requires full consent and awareness of the concept and process. Non-Voluntary Euthanasia, whereas the decision of ending an individual's life is taken by another, like a family member or your partner. This takes place when the individual is in a state of permanent ...
Euthanasia in India
3. involuntary euthanasia-: When the person who is killed made an expressed wish to the contrary. . passive euthanasia-: Intentionally causing death by not providing necessary and ordinary (usual and customary) care or food and water. 5. active euthanasia-: Intentionally causing a person's death by performing an action such as by giving a ...
euthanasia in Hindi
Check 'euthanasia' translations into Hindi. Look through examples of euthanasia translation in sentences, listen to pronunciation and learn grammar.
Euthanasia meaning in Hindi
Euthanasia meaning in Hindi : Get meaning and translation of Euthanasia in Hindi language with grammar,antonyms,synonyms and sentence usages by ShabdKhoj. Know answer of question : what is meaning of Euthanasia in Hindi? Euthanasia ka matalab hindi me kya hai (Euthanasia का हिंदी में मतलब ). Euthanasia meaning in Hindi (हिन्दी मे मीनिंग ...
Hindi translation of 'euthanasia'
Hindi Translation of "EUTHANASIA" | The official Collins English-Hindi Dictionary online. Over 100,000 Hindi translations of English words and phrases.
Euthanasia In India Essay In Hindi
Euthanasia In India Essay In Hindi - Learning Spaces. Housed within two campus buildings, the College of Education offers state-of-the-art facilities where Teacher Education students can learn to sculpt young minds through teacher training that focuses on the various disciplines in the university's curriculum.
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi - Previous Up Next: Samuel Camacho . Give us a call (844) 937-8679 Mon-Fri 5am to 7pm MST Saturday 6am to 5pm MST Sunday 12pm to 4pm MST Default . College education means education at an institution that ...
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi: 3.89 avg rating — 220 ratings. Top 16 Best Iraq War Books Updated 09 /2022. BY Dennis Lehane. 4.40 avg rating — 5 ratings. Search for a book to add a reference. 1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars. David Price (Goodreads Author)
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi
Just to let you know, our essay writers do all the work related to writing, starting with researching a topic and ending with formatting and editing the completed paper. We can help you choose the right topic, do in-depth research, choose the best up-to-date sources, and finally compose a brilliant piece to your instructions.
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi
We will be happy to help you complete a task of any complexity and volume, we will listen to special requirements and make sure that you will be the best student in your group. From a High School to a Ph.D. Dissertation. 100% Success rate. 1 (888)302-2675 1 (888)814-4206.
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi - Hire an expert writer to handle your academic difficulties. ID 21067. 567. ASK ME A QUESTION. 630 . Finished Papers. 4.9/5. Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi ... Thus, no copy-pasting is entertained by the writers and they can easily 'write an essay for me'. Nursing Psychology Mathematics Healthcare ...
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi
In such a scenario, it becomes impossible to write all the drafts on your own. The writing service by the experts of PenMyPaper can be your rescuer amidst such a situation. We will write my essay for me with ease. You need not face the trouble to write alone, rather leave it to the experts and they will do all that is required to write your essays.
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi - Prices than inspire from. 599 Orders prepared. 63 Customer reviews. Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi: ... Essay About Exchange Student Experience, Thesis Bangla Subtitle, Professional Critical Thinking Proofreading Sites Usa, Case Study Editing Site Ca, Essay Samples Of Media File 100% Success rate
Essay On Euthanasia In India In Hindi
World's peace isn't riding on essay writing. If you don't have any intent on reading the entire 2000-word essay that we did for you, add a 1-page summary to your order, which will be a short overview of your essay one paragraph long, just to be in the loop. 100% Success rate. 14 Customer reviews. ID 4595967.
Euthanasia In India Essay In Hindi
506. Finished Papers. 1098 Orders prepared. Euthanasia In India Essay In Hindi, My Fav Person Sister Essay, Online Resume Strategies, Personal Statement Examples For Nursing, Business Analyst Personal Statement Cv Examples, Christian Faculty Openings Resume, Samurais Garden Essay Topics. This exquisite Edwardian single-family house has a 1344 ...