INTRODUCTION:-

Euthanasia is otherwise known as mercy killing. It is an act or practice performed to put a life to
a painless death, where such life suffered from prolonged illness from painful and incurable
disease or incapacitating physical disorder and at that point of life, the death appears to be a gift
to the sufferings of the person rather to live a cursed life. Such euthanasia can be administered by
withdrawing the artificial life support which helps that person to live. But throughout the world
no nation has any specific statutory laws with regards to the euthanasia. So legally it’s a suicide
if committed by that person and murder if administered by anyone else. The first countries to
legalize euthanasia were the Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2002. But assisting a patient to
death is explicitly prohibited by so called HIPPOCRATIC OATH, which the doctor took in the
starting of their career. Which means “give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest
any such to any patient.’’
RELIGIOUS ASPECTS:-
Birth and death are something which is controlled by the occultary powers. The almighty who
gave birth or create our own existence also predecided the death of the individual. Death is that
certain thing which can’t be avoided but its also a thing which no individual has got any power to
alter.
BUDHHISM:- The principle of the Buddhism is based upon the value of compassion. As per the
view of the scholars of the Buddhism, it is justified to administer the euthanasia in order to
relieve that person from pain. But if such act or administration of the euthanasia is associated
with any ill motive to destroy someone’s life is always barred.
CATHOLICISM:-As per the Christian culture, Euthanasia is a crime against life and hence
consider it to be the crime against God.
HINDUISM:-In Hinduism, there are two different views and prospective. One view direct that
mercy killing is done with a purpose to help in ending a painful life a person, which supposed to
be a good deed. As it is held to be a moral obligation with a selfless motive.
Another view suggests that whether it’s done with a view of good motive or not, but it’s not in
the hand of human being to disturb the cycle of birth and death. Death in itself is a natural
process and come in time.
** MEN HAS ONLY TWO TRUSTWORTHY FRIENDS. ONE IS VIDYA(KNOWLEDGE)
AND OTHER ONE IS MRITYU(DEATH). {As per Vedas}
ISLAM:-Islam and the Quran are against euthanasia. Human life is a sacred thing as per the
Quran and only Allah choose how long each person lives.
TYPES OF EUTHANASIA:-
ASSISTED SUICIDE:- It is also known as Physician Assisted Suicide(PAS). When the doctor
has the knowledge of endless sufferings of the patient, so they find out the most effective and
painless method.
ACTIVE EUTHNASIA:- In this method doctor directly end someone’s life by giving lethal
dose of drugs.
PASSIVE EUTHANSIA:-Doctors by withholding or withdrawing the life supports of the of the
or by limiting the life the life sustaining treatments which results into the passing of the person
quickly.
VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA:- The person himself consciously decided and seek help with
ending their life. That person must give his/her consent and also has the full understanding of the
consequences.
NON-VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA:- Someone else from the close family member must
take the decision to end someone’s life, when that person is completely unconscious or
permanently incapacitated. This process also includes the passive euthanasia.
LEGAL HISTORY OF CONCEPT OF EUTHANASIA IN INDIA:-
Death is not a right; it is an end to all rights. Human being born jacketed with all the basic human
rights which can’t be alienated. Any individual by his/her own choice can’t evade the fate of the
death. As per the Article-21 of the Constitution of India, it gives a fundamental right i.e., right to
life and liberty. But the question is whether the right to death can overpower or even includes the
right to die or not. As per the Doctrine of Waiver under Article-13 of Constitution, it states that
the individual who get the fundamental rights can’t waived those rights by their own choice.
E.g., Right to persona; liberty doesn’t provide so much of liberty to sell ourselves as a slave.
The apex court in various judgments evaluate the extent and application of the Article-21 of the
Constitution, whether the right to life includes right to liberty or not.
There are number of cases like Gian Kaur’s case, P Rathiram’s case and Aruna Shanbaug’s case,
where Supreme Court of India has given number of judgments regarding the legal aspect of the
euthanasia.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE:-
In United Kingdom, administering euthanasia is illegal but there’s lot more campaigns are going
on demand to legalize it for limited assisted killings of people. In USA, which is a federal state in
itself and its various part like Columbia, Colorado, Hawaii etc. legalized the euthanasia. In
Canada, euthanasia is legal since 2015. In Australia, it is legal from 2019. In Switzerland, it is
illegal, but under section-115 of Swiss penal code protects, the assisting person in mercy killing
if he has honorable motives.
MEDICAL DEFECTS:-
The physicians most of the times suffered from the clinical problem
which is basically the technical problems while administering the euthanasia. Sometimes
physicians end up giving a lethal medication instead of the medication which fastened the
process of death. It’s became patients’ inability to perceive the medication. After a lot of survey
done for the euthanasia, the significant clinical problems are;
 Difficulty in finding a vein in which the appropriate drug shall
be administered.
Difficulty in administering the oral medication.
Some other frequent complications like spasm, nausea,
vomiting.
Difficulty in putting the intravenous line, complication or
problems with completion.
Longer the period of interval between the administering the
medication and death.

Historical Background of Euthanasia:

Death should be merciful is not a new idea. When the living does not
bring joy to a person when a person is terminally ill and death becomes
unavoidable it is understood that the person is wishing to die. In the
journal “two pioneers of euthanasia around 1800” by Michael
Stolberg, the story of people pulling the legs of people hanged but not
died to hurry their death. The Apologie, the autobiography of a French
surgeon named Ambroise Paré, took place on three gravely wounded
soldiers. one of the unharmed soldiers asked the surgeon if they would
make it or not. The surgeon responded that they would not. To that, the
unharmed soldier proceeded to slit their throats.

In the Book dying with dignity: A legal approach to assist death Giza
Lopes writes about the invention and use of morphine to treat and then
kill pain and believes that there is a less painful dying process.
In the mid- 19th century doctor started to use chloroform, which has
fewer side effects than morphine which made people unconscious,
In 1885 the American medical association formally opposed voluntary
euthanasia. Though some doctors believed in the compensatory nature of
suffering, the protest was not enough overwhelming to stop the
movement.
Doctors and ethicists from both the United States and England
hashed out their thoughts on euthanasia in medical journals.
When time and technology progressed, people came to see surgeons as
God-like figures.
the Ohio legislature introduced a euthanasia bill on 23 January 1906.
Anna Hall, a Cincinnati woman wanted hard to legalize euthanasia to
hurry the death of her mother who was suffering from a painful and
terminal illness.
The following year Dr. R.H. Geogory introduced the same bill at the
Lowa state legislature. these two have been labeled as the “chloroform
bill”. Doctors and ethicists from the two countries showed a very strong
reaction to these bills in their medical journals.
After some years in 1911 a woman named Sadie merchant, who was
living in a Shaker colony was struggling to breathe with single-
functioning lungs for years and wanted help for dying. The Shakers with
whom she’d been living prayed and decided finally that helping her die
would be the right thing to do. Two of the Shakers were arrested. Their
case was ultimately dismissed in January 1912, Lopes writes in Dying
with Dignity. The case was well covered by newspapers across the
country including the Washington Times and the New York Times. The
dismissal of charges helped cement the idea of “euthanasia” as merciful
in the case of terminal illness and grave suffering.
The euthanasia movement got going in England in the year 1935 when
the voluntary euthanasia legalization society was founded. The founder
C. Killick Millard wrote to the British medical journal that the right to
die is not a medical issue and therefore not to give one opinion.
A bill was introduced in Britain’s house of lords that whoever is above
the age of 21 and fatally ill with incurable diseases and mentally
competent and suffering from pain and seeking voluntary euthanasia.
The person must have seen different doctors and should have 2
witnesses and must address the health minister, who will then take
interview the dying person. The bill’s requirements were identical which
is a law now in most U. S states. with 35-14 votes the bill was defeated.

CONCEPT OF LIVING WILL IN INDIA:

The Supreme court accepted the concept of a living will in 2018 and
held that right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under article 21.
A will comes into effect after a person is dead. but there is a similar
document called a living will. this is a relatively undetermined topic in
India, it refers to a written document that a person uses to give explicit
instructions in advance about the medical treatment to be administered if
he becomes incompetent or is unable to communicate.
Passive euthanasia is a situation where there is a withdrawal of medical
treatment to hurry of death of a terminally ill person.
The honorable supreme court in 2011, on the matter of Arena
Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, recognized the concept of
passive euthanasia.

What should a Living Will state?

If the need arises the execution of the living will be given to a trusted
person. The person should mention that he knows the consequences of
making a living will and at which point the treatment should stop.
It must state the name of the patient or / appoint an executor to decide on
the behalf of such a person making a living Will, in case the patient is
incapacity of making so. It shall also consist of the mode of financing
the treatment and the place of treatment so preferred.
Procedure for execution of the Living Will
The will should be signed by the person who made it in front of 2
witnesses and should be handed over to the judicial magistrate of the
first class (JMFC). The JMFC must preserve a physical and a digital
copy.
Who should you hand, your Living Will over to?
When the need arises person must hand over the living will to a trusted
person for its execution. The family members must be informed
regarding any misuse of the document in the future. The person making
the living will before signing consult a doctor.

The JMFC should inform the close family members of the content and
the execution of the will if not present at the time of the executor

The future of Living Wills in India

Living wills are an unexplored concept in India. In India, there is very

little evidence that how a living will be executed. due to a lack of
precedence, the path is very tangled.
But the making of a living will is so important and
beneficial numerous. It averts the unnecessary extension of medical
treatment for an individual who must be suffering from a terminally ill.
Legal position of euthanasia in India
Indian courts only allow passive killing. In a recent popular cause case, the "right to die with
dignity" was considered a fundamental human right. It is accessible to terminally and persistently
ill patients who have reached a permanent vegetative state with little or no chance of recovery
and who are assisted by external devices and machines as a cardiopulmonary machine. In such
cases, it is possible to allow the act of passive death. This was not the case in the past as even
passive death is not legal in India.

The physician who arranges the fatal act falls under Exception 5 of Section 300 of the Indian
Penal Code because he has the necessary "intent" to cause the patient's death. In the case of
voluntary death, the doctor in question or the person who caused the death can be punished under
Article 304 of the Penal Code for manslaughter without valid consent. However, this regulation
only applies to voluntary welfare cases where the patient has agreed to cause his own death and
is 18 years of age at the time of consent.

In the case of gian kaur vs state of Punjab, involuntary and involuntary deaths belong to the
first reservation of Article 92 of the IPC and are therefore not included here. Active suicide is a
crime in India. One of the main points raised and submitted to the Supreme Court to legalize
euthanasia in India is the 'right to die'. However, this claim was not accepted, it was rejected and
the Supreme Court of India ruled that the "right to life" under Article 21 did not include the
"right to die". And in no way or by any other means can it be extended to mean the same thing.
As a result, the country's Supreme Court does not consider the illegitimacy of the death-and-
death regime to be constitutionally null.

Article 21 of the 1950 Indian Constitution grants citizens the right to enjoy life, as well as the
right to autonomy, privacy, and self-determination, which are included in the area of individual
freedom. However, combining the right to die with the right to life is a point of contention in
India due to the existence of two legal barriers in the form of Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian
Penal Code 1860 and supporting and attempting Suicide. The concept of euthanasia and the
provisions relating to Article 309 of the IPC have been considered by the Supreme Court in
several decisions.
In the case of P. Rathinam V. Union Of India, the fundamental law question addressed by the
Supreme Court of India is whether the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
includes the choice not to live forced, thereby exercising the right to die or not. . Previous rulings
by the Supreme Court of India have also been made that any law that violates a fundamental
right becomes null and void. The court declared that Section 309 of the ICC was void and
unconstitutional as it violated the provisions of Section 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court
based its ruling on the premise that the right to life means that an individual should be free to
choose to act in his or her life therein. This is a legal means guaranteed by the Indian constitution
and not just the existence of animals. He added that the provision was cruel, the provision was
unreasonable and that its removal was necessary to make room for the humanization of the
penalty clause. It is a religion that only leads to violations of individual liberties and has no
grounds for state intervention.

PASSIVE EUTHANASA IN INDAIN LEGAL CONTEXT

1. ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG V UNION OF INDIA:
 In the case of Aruna Ramachandra Shambaug, stakeholders filed a
petition in 1973 on behalf of a victim who had been raped 36 years earlier. She was a nurse at a
hospital who was raped by an employee. She was unaware of her surroundings. She was
bedridden. Petitioner argued that the defendant should be instructed to stop feeding the victim.
After reviewing the report prepared by the doctor, the court did not allow the victim to be
deprived of life support and was denied food. Termination of treatment with intent to let the
victim die is considered passive euthanasia. Withholding food from a comatose person is also
considered passive euthanasia. The court reviewed the doctor's report and expected a positive
outcome. A court has ruled that passive euthanasia can only be legalized by law and extended to
India. In this case, we ask for permission to euthanize Aruna Ramachandra Shambhaug as she is
in a permanent vegetative state (PVS), effectively dead and does not have a state of
consciousness like her. An application has been made to the Supreme Court of India. The brain is
practically dead. The Supreme Court of India has set up a Patient Health Examination Board to
resolve this issue. Ultimately, the court ruled that passive euthanasia was not permitted by law
and dismissed the motion filed on Shanbaug's behalf. The court also recommended
decriminalizing attempted suicide by removing penalties set out in the Indian Penal Code. The
Court of Justice has established guidelines in this regard. It will stand as law until Congress
enacts legislation on this point.
(1) A decision to discontinue life support must be made by either a parent, spouse, or other
close relative, or in the absence of either, such a decision shall be made by the attending
physician. may be done. However, the bonafede decision should be made in the best
interest of the patient.
(2) (2) Accordingly, even if a close relative or a physician or close friend makes a decision to
discontinue life support, such decision shall be subject to the formal notice of the relevant
High Court, as provided in the Airedale case consent is required. We need it in our
country. In this case, the court wonders what provision of the statute would allow an
incapacitated person to be removed from life support.
The court then ruled that under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the Supreme Court may authorize such incompetent persons to be deprived
of life support. The High Court has the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to
issue directions or orders as well as to issue complaints. Pursuant to the present case,
when such an application is made to the President of the High Court, a panel of at least
two judges should be formed immediately to decide whether to grant leave. Prior to this,
the Bank should consider the opinion of a panel of her three eminent physicians
appointed by the Bank after consultation with medical authorities as the Bank deems
appropriate. Preferably one of the three doctors she should be a neurologist. One should
be a psychiatrist and the third should be a doctor.

2. GIAN KAUR V STATE, AIR 1996 SC 946

Gian Kaur challenged the validity of Articles 306 and 21 of the Constitution, which
criminalize assisted suicide, and Article 309 he argued that two benches P. Latinum
 Judgment. Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were convicted in the first instance
court under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. They sentenced her to 6 years in prison
and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for helping Kulwant Kaur commit suicide. Article 306 punishes
those who assist suicide; Article 309 punishes those who attempt suicide The issue was
decided by the Constitutional Council. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to life
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die. The World
Bank states that “The right to life is one of the natural rights under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. , inconsistent with and at odds with the notion of the right to life.With respect
and humility, the court rejected any comparison between the right to live and the right to die.
The right to give a fresh start and a streak of life and the right to die are different and
unjustified depending on the considerations of Article 21. The court has made it clear that at
the end of life, a naturally dignified death should not be mixed or entwined with an unnatural
death, and that the sanctity of life should be minimized. The Constitutional Chamber of five
judges has declared sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 to be
constitutional. The Supreme Court's Constitutional Court has ruled that both euthanasia and
assisted suicide are not legal in India. The court affirmed that euthanasia should only be
applied by law.

3. COMMON CAUSE SOCIETY V UNION OF INDIA-

This was decided by the Supreme Court on the issue of euthanasia. The
petitioner corporation will die with dignity, in consultation with the state government, if deemed
necessary to ensure that a person in declining health or terminally ill will die. It argued that the
right should be a fundamental right under Article 21 of the 1950 Indian Constitution. The
condition is a "My Living Will and Authorization to Attorney" presented to the hospital so that it
can take appropriate action when dealing with an executor who has been hospitalized with a
serious and potentially life-threatening illness. It should be possible to issue a document titled
Appoint an expert panel of physicians, social scientists, and lawyers to investigate the issue of
issuing a living will directive.
Society argued that the right to die with dignity was an integral part of the right to live with
dignity. If a patient is constantly approaching death, his health is deteriorating, and in such
situations every person can make the decision to continue life or end it. Passive euthanasia
should be legalized as it frees patients from such an incurable state of excruciating pain. Free the
patient from such trauma and pain. The concepts of living wills and powers of attorney were also
favored. Patients should have the right to die with dignity, free from pain and suffering.
Everyone has the right to decide for themselves. If a person is unable to express a choice due to
incapacity, that person has the right to express a choice in advance, either through an advance
directive or through an agent acting on their behalf. A representative must act in the person's best
interests. People with intellectual capacity should have the right to refuse medical care, including
deprivation of life-saving skills. The ruling also ordered the establishment of a committee to
exercise oversight functions.
 CONCLUSION
Euthanasia seems to have raised ethical concerns in the contemporary society. Some of the
significant issues include ethical, practical, and religious issues. However, euthanasia
encompasses immense ambiguity and vagueness because there is an overall absence of
homogeneity in the societal perception. Therefore, different groups of individuals in the society
view the issue from varied perceptions, thus, leading to the emergence of two opposing sides: the
proponents and the opponents.
Proponents of the euthanasia debate argue that it is acceptable, unless and until one’s decision
will not cause harm to the rights of others. Moreover, they claim that universality of euthanasia
will lessen the burden on healthcare resources. In contrast, opponents of euthanasia are of the
view that it is unethical in virtually all aspects of human life. They hold a popular belief that
death is a natural phenomenon and therefore, human beings lack the right to interfere with life
processes. However, there is no universal consensus over whether euthanasia is right or wrong,
leading to the current unparalleled ethical dilemma.
Even though euthanasia is currently allowed in several nations throughout the planet, legalizing
the same is not really a particularly popular notion. It has taken a while for the Indian courts to
recognize & approve passive euthanasia, starting with the trials of Gian Kaur, Aruna Shanbaug,
and Common cause (a registered society).
Every individual must regard & adhere to the rulings that are made by the constitutional Court
because it is the highest authority of jurisprudence, along with the panel considering the issues
who are extremely knowledgeable and smart. As of now, the practice of active euthanasia is still
not permitted, and perhaps it would not be applied in the long term either. The authorization of
euthanasia will do more harm than good to the persons upon whom it is being implemented.
Improving care at the end of life will necessitate many changes in attitudes, policies, and actions.
Such changes will involve a multitude of people and institutions that have a role in making and
implementing decisions relating to patient care or in structuring the environments in which such
decisions are reached and realized. Clearly, what patients and their families know, expect, and
desire is significant. Health care professionals play critical roles in diagnosis, communication,
guidance and proper direction, treatment, negotiation, and advocacy for patients at various levels.
Decisions by health plan managers, institutional administrators, and governmental officials shape
and frequently impede the ability of patients, families, and clinicians to construct a care plan that
serves the dying person well.
When the health of any patient is so falling down, he is suffering too much pains that there are no
chances of recovery or survival,he should be allowed to refuse treatment or if he has expressed
his wishes in advance to do so and now, he is not in a condition of expressing his wish, his wish
should be regarded. Sometimes, the patient may take the decision of being treated with
euthanasia due to the conditions around him. In such a situation he should be properly checked
and looked after by a psychiatrist to come out from depression or otherwise. Every human being
whether he is a healthy person or a patient suffering from any fatal disease, he/she should be
allowed to die with dignity. The issue is linked to human rights protection and its availability. To
come within the fold of article 21 of the Constitution of India, the right to die with dignity should
be protected from being misused. The patient may be conducted with passive euthanasia but with
proper care and attention. In Indian perspective, the grant of active euthanasia may not be
permissible in the present scenario as the society is not so educated and the crime rate is too high
in India, so it will not safeguard the security and interests of the patient. In a society, like India,
relatives and any other beneficiary may be interested to get property and assets of patients in
inheritance, it is the responsibility of the authorities to conduct it after proper inquiry and
confirmation of doctors and their medical reports.

The law makers must analyze the overall background and the socio legal conditions to grant
euthanasia in the Indian perspective. The Supreme Court of India has considered the inherent
motives of the persons responsible for not considering the active euthanasia. The Supreme Court
of India has allowed passive euthanasia and to form a law to define the boundaries and limits.
The apex judiciary also favored for constituting a committee that would play a supervisory role
in the conduction of mercy killing. The decision of the honorable court is highly appreciable; it
works like a light in the dark. Apex court has focused upon the suffering of the patient and his
peaceful exit from life while allowing the same to make secure the right to die with dignity is the
positive expansion of the right to life under the ambit of article 21 of the Constitution.Though the
grant of passive euthanasia should be welcomed and the law as well as now it is the
responsibility of the Parliament to frame the law based on this issue and the guidelines to
implement the same as far as possible. It would be helpful in making the situation clearer.

In general, changes in systems of care, not just individual beliefs and actions are necessary if real
gains are to be made in helping people live well despite terminal or fatal illness. Such
widespread changes depend on a stronger social consensus on what constitutes suitable and
supportive care for those who are approaching death. Cases of patient and family powerlessness
to stop what they see as futile and painful treatments replicate a lack of such consensus.
Unexpectedly, this lack of consensus also is evident when patients or families demand treatments
that practitioners perceive as useless, counterproductive, or even inhumane. It likewise reveals
itself in a health care delivery and financing system that still rewards life-prolonging
interventions (even when they will be ineffectual) and slights comforting and supportive services
for those for whom life-extending treatment is not helpful or desired. People should work
together to form humane systems of care that assure the consistent use of existing knowledge to
prevent and relieve those suffering and ensure that support efforts to provide people with the
right care at the right time in the right way. We can, individually and together, "approach" death
constructively and form humane care systems that people can trust to serve them well as they
die.