Right to Die-by Vedant Karia at LexCliq

 Right to Die-by Vedant Karia at LexCliq

The Right to Die has long been a controversial question. It has been a hot topic in India for decades with respect to faiths. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that “no individual shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty unless in accordance with the law”. Though this article is constructed negatively, its essence has a positive impact on a person's life. It obliges the state morally and legally to provide a decent life for its inhabitants.

Diverse Indian judges have interpreted the term “right to life” in various circumstances over time. It has sever rights under its periphery now. This includes the right to a decent life, food, education, a clean environment, a decent roof, and other rights for a better living. The debate now is whether the right to die with dignity extends to the right to end one's life. Various opinions exist on this subject, including legitimate, political, noble, and medical. This issue was originally raised in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Sripati Dubal, when it was decided that the right to die is a subset of the right to live.

In general, the Right to Die refers to the right to take one's own life. Suicide and euthanasia are options. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 punishes attempted suicide. Although it is widely accepted that those who attempt suicide have mental health issues, the punishment imposed on them is controversial. The second way to die is by euthanasia.

The phrase euthanasia comes from the Greek words eu (good) and thanatos (death). Euthanasia is thus ‘good death'. It's also called merciless murder. It is frequently offered or requested by a person who is suffering from an incurable condition. Euthanasia is used compassionately to relieve a person's suffering from an incurable sickness. Euthanasia has several definitions. According to Merriam Webster, euthanasia is “the intentional and purposeful termination of life at the request of a patient by a doctor.” It comprises four parts: voluntary, involuntary, active, and passive.

Along with India, the United States, the Netherlands, and other countries have debated this subject. Whether living life with dignity does not allow a person to die with dignity has been debated. Why can't a person die with their own consent instead of suffering? After hearing and evaluating all of the arguments, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in Aruna Shanbaug that passive euthanasia is now allowed in India.

The Right to Die is not a new idea in the worldwide community. It has been happening since the dawn of time. People used to help others put them to death in the Roman and Greek civilizations. We may see that in Sparta, a Greek city where disabled children were slain. An older age group practised voluntary euthanasia where an individual with his own agreement used to practise euthanasia in a condition of disease. The concept of suicide or self-annihilation is mentioned in the holy Bible, the holy Koran, and the Rig Veda.

In India, there are several examples of people exercising their freedom to die and committing suicide based on religious beliefs. The Mahabharata and Ramayana are similar. In the topic of euthanasia, Hindus have differing viewpoints. One opinion says that doctors who provide euthanasia should not accept such requests from patients since it will cause an unnatural death by separating the spirit and body. This act will hurt both the physicians and the patients karma. Others think that euthanasia should not be practised since it goes against the concept of ahimsa, which means not killing anyone. However, there are Hindu sects who think that ending someone's life who is suffering is a moral requirement and that doing so is a good deed.

Muslims do not believe in euthanasia. They believe that human life is sacred and that only Allah has the authority to take it away. Human involvement is not allowed. Most Christians believe the same. Their logic is that God gave humans life, and that God created the cycle of birth and death, and that disrupting it will cause global imbalance. So, regardless the person or scenario, a human cannot take another's life.

Sikhs draw their ideas from their sacred scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, and the Rehat Maryada, which describes the Sikh code of behaviour. Suicide and euthanasia were likewise banned by Sikhs, who argued that it was an obtrusion in God's plan. Instead of protesting, they feel they should make the most of the life God has given them.

In India, a person's life is paramount. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the right to life, has been interpreted numerous times by judges in various circumstances. This is a birthright privilege that cannot be taken away. As stated before in the essay, Article 21 does not cover the right to die. But it was raised for the first time in State of Maharashta vs. M.S.Dubal. In this instance, the court ruled that Article 21 protects the freedom to die. As a result, IPC 309 was repealed. The judges stated that the desire to end one's life is not unusual, though it is rare. In P. Rathiman v. Union of India, the same decision was upheld. However, in Gian Kaur v Punjab, the verdict was reversed. In this case, a five-judge court ruled that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution does not provide the right to die. The right to live is a natural right, whereas the right to die is an unnatural component of existence and hence cannot be a natural right.

The Indian Law Commission's 196th report addressed this subject extensively. The commission had to decide whether to continue or stop treating individuals who were near death. Also discussed by the Law Commission were which patients are proficient, what constitutes an informed decision, what is best for the patient, and whether a patient or his family members, including close friends, can challenge the doctor's actions in court.

In view of the aforementioned, the Statute Commission advocated a law protecting terminally ill patients who refuse all medical treatment, including externally given meals and drink. Doctors will meet with the patient's family and close friends, but the final decision will be made by doctors with the help of other experts, according to the Medical Council of India's rules. However, the treating physician cannot select the specialist of his choice. The Law Commission believed that forming a panel of experts nominated and certified by a recognised public institution and approved by the national government would help reduce the number of management exploitation complaints.

A doctor should make a note in which he notes the patient's refusal to take treatment, and whether the patient is fit (made an informed decision) or not. If the family disagrees with the doctor's choice, they can appeal to the state's honourable court, and the doctor will not act until the court issues its final judgement.

Over a decade, euthanasia has been a hot topic. Despite hundreds of debates, there is still no definite understanding regarding euthanasia. As soon as the topic of euthanasia is raised, numerous religious, moral, and legal perspectives emerge, making mercy killing a major social and legal issue. The major issue of dispute in this discussion is whether to save an individual's right to die or to save his right to life.

Vedant Karia