Passive Euthanasia: Legal and Ethical

Euthanasia, commonly known as mercy killing, has been a subject of intense ethical and legal debate worldwide. It involves intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. Euthanasia can be classified into active and passive forms, each with distinct legal and ethical implications. This article delves into the concept of passive euthanasia, examining its definition, legal status, and the moral arguments surrounding it, with a focus on significant case laws that have shaped its legal framework in India, and comparisons with other countries where it is legal.

Passive Euthanasia: Definition

Passive euthanasia refers to the act of withholding or withdrawing medical treatments or life-support systems that are necessary to sustain life. Unlike active euthanasia, which involves directly causing a patient’s death through lethal substances or actions, passive euthanasia allows a patient to die naturally by not intervening medically. It includes actions like discontinuing medication, turning off life support machines, or not performing life-saving surgery.

Legal Status of Passive Euthanasia in India

The legal landscape of euthanasia in India has evolved significantly over the past few decades.

• Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996): The Supreme Court of India held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die, distinguishing between euthanasia and suicide.
• Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): This landmark case permitted passive euthanasia for the first time in India. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of life support for Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse who had been in a persistent vegetative state for decades. The Court laid down detailed guidelines for passive euthanasia, emphasizing the need for judicial oversight.
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): This case further solidified the legal status of passive euthanasia in India. The Supreme Court recognized the right to die with dignity as a Fundamental Right under Article 21. It allowed individuals to draft a ‘living will,’ enabling them to refuse medical treatment or opt for the withdrawal of life support under specific conditions. The Court’s judgment highlighted the importance of patient autonomy and dignity in end-of-life care.

Procedure for Passive Euthanasia in India

The Supreme Court of India, in its 2018 judgment, outlined a specific procedure to be followed for passive euthanasia to ensure that the process is carried out legally and ethically. Here are the key steps involved:

• Living Will: An individual, while still in a sound state of mind, can draft a living will stating their wishes regarding the withdrawal or withholding of medical treatment in case they are diagnosed with a terminal illness or are in a persistent vegetative state.
• Witness and Attestation: The living will must be signed by the individual in the presence of two witnesses and must be countersigned by a Notary or a Gazetted officer. This ensures that the document is legally valid and has been made voluntarily.
• Custody and Accessibility: The living will should be kept with the primary physician of the individual and must be uploaded to the National Health Digital Record for easy access by hospitals and doctors.
• Medical Board: If the situation arises where the provisions of the living will need to be acted upon, the hospital must constitute a medical board comprising the head of the treating department and at least three experts from relevant medical fields with at least 20 years of experience. The Board will assess the patient’s condition and confirm whether to honor the living will.
• Judicial Oversight: In case the medical board approves the withdrawal or withholding of treatment, the hospital must inform the jurisdictional Collector, who will form another medical board. This board will review the decision to ensure that it complies with legal and ethical standards.
• High Court Approval: If there is any conflict or if the medical board denies permission, the family members or the hospital can approach the relevant High Court. The High Court will then form a fresh medical board to enable the Court to make the final decision.

Moral and Ethical Arguments

The debate over passive euthanasia is fraught with moral and ethical considerations. Proponents argue that it respects the autonomy and dignity of individuals, allowing them to make informed decisions about their own lives. They believe that passive euthanasia provides a humane way to relieve unbearable suffering and avoid prolonging the agony of terminally ill patients. It also aligns with the ethical principle of non-maleficence, which obligates healthcare providers to avoid causing harm to patients.

Opponents, however, raise concerns about the potential for abuse and the slippery slope argument. They worry that legalizing passive euthanasia could lead to a devaluation of life, particularly for vulnerable populations such as the elderly or disabled. There is also the challenge of ensuring that decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment are made with genuine consent and without undue pressure from family members or healthcare providers. Ethical dilemmas arise when distinguishing between the right to refuse treatment and the potential for coercion or misinterpretation of a patient’s wishes.

Comparative Analysis with Other Countries

•  Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg: These countries allow euthanasia for patients experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement. The practice is tightly regulated to prevent abuse, and physicians must adhere to strict guidelines to ensure the patient’s consent is informed and voluntary.
• Switzerland: Switzerland bans euthanasia but allows assisted dying in the presence of a doctor. The process involves patients administering the lethal substance themselves, under medical supervision. Swiss law permits assisted dying even for non-residents, leading to “suicide tourism.”
• United States: In the United States, laws regarding euthanasia and assisted suicide vary by state. States like Washington, Oregon, and Montana have legalized physician-assisted suicide, where doctors provide terminally ill patients with the means to end their own lives. However, active euthanasia remains illegal throughout the country.
• Canada: Canada legalized both euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2016 under the Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) law. The legislation allows eligible adults suffering from a grievous and irremediable medical condition to seek medical assistance in dying. The law includes stringent safeguards to ensure the patient’s decision is well-considered and voluntary.

Conclusion

Passive euthanasia remains a complex and contentious issue, balancing the ethical principles of autonomy, dignity, and non-maleficence against concerns about potential misuse and the sanctity of life. The legal recognition of passive euthanasia in India, through significant case laws and a defined procedural framework, marks a significant step towards respecting patient autonomy and ensuring a dignified death for those suffering from terminal illnesses.

However, ongoing dialogue and careful regulation are essential to address the ethical challenges and safeguard the rights and interests of all individuals involved. Comparisons with other countries highlight the diversity in legal approaches, reflecting different cultural, ethical, and legal contexts. As society continues to grapple with these profound questions, the legal and ethical frameworks surrounding passive euthanasia will undoubtedly evolve further.

Sharing is caring!