EUTHANASIA

A Right to Live or Right to Die

Submitted by:
Rhea Srivastava
Division B (BBA LLB)
Roll No 11
Class 2016 of Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Symbiosis International University, PUNE
In
September 2011
Under the guidance of:
Dr. Md. Salim,
Course in Charge,
Jurisprudence
Symbiosis Law School,
NOIDA 201301

C E R T I F I C AT E

The project entitled Euthanasia Right to Live or Right to Die submitted to the Symbiosis
Law School, NOIDA for Jurisprudence as part of Internal assessment is based on my original
work carried out under the guidance of

Dr. Md. Salim from 5th August 2011 to 21st

September 2011.
The research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.
The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly
acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
detected later on.

RHEA SRIVASTAVA

Date: 21st September 2011

Acknowledgements
With my deepest appreciation, I would like to thank Mr.Mohammad Salim for providing me
the opportunity to undertake a research work on Euthanasia- Right to Live or Right to Die.
I would like to thank him for providing me all the necessary help in completing this project.
Without his help, it would be very difficult for me to complete the project on time.
I would like to thank Symbiosis Law School, Noida for providing me an excellent
environment which helped in my project.
I would also like to thank all my classmates for helping me, in one way or the other, for the
success of this research paper.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. What is Euthanasia.. 5
2. Ethical Contradiction.. 6
3. Theology. 7
4. Indian Law on Euthanasia.. 8
5. Legal status of Euthanasia around the world 9
6. Euthanasia Cases in India..12

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs. Union Of India & Ors. on 7 March, 2011
Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab on 21 March 1996
C.A. Thomas Master And Etc. vs Union Of India on 23 June, 2000

7. Euthanasia Cases Around the world. 14

8. Arguments for Euthanasia.. 16
9. Arguments against Euthanasia 17
10. Does Euthanasia lead to devaluation of life? ........... 18
11. Conclusion.. 19
12. Bibliography . 20

Marte hain aarzoo mein marne ki Maut aati hai par nahin aati

What is Euthanasia?
The word euthanasia stems from the Greek words euthanatos meaning good death and
refers to the action of a third party, usually a doctor to deliberately end the life of an
individual.
Euthanasia technically exists in four categories:

Active Euthanasia:
It means a positive merciful act to end useless sufferings and a meaningless existence. It is an
act of COMMISION for example by giving large doses of a drug to hasten death.
Passive Euthanasia:
It implies discontinuing or not using extraordinary life sustaining measures to prolong life.
Others include Act of OMISSION such as failure to resuscitate a terminally ill or
incapacitated patient (e.g. a severely defective new born infant).
Voluntary:
When the euthanasia is practiced with the expressed desire and consent of the person
concerned.
Involuntary:
When the euthanasia is practiced against the will of the person.
Non-Voluntary
When it is practiced without the scope to make the desire of the subject available
This includes cases where:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The person is in a coma.

The person is too young (e.g. a very young baby)
The person is senile the person is mentally retarded to a very severe extent
The person is severely brain damaged
The person is mentally disturbed in such a way that they should be protected from
themselves.
Ethical Contradiction
The Hippocratic Oath and International code of medical ethics pose ethical contradiction for
the doctors. Hippocrates mentions euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written
between 400 and 300 B.C.
The Oath states: To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may
cause his death
According to him, a doctor is to relieve the pain of his patient in one hand and protect and
prolong his life on the other. The first can be used in favor of the doctrine of euthanasia but
the second counters the doctrine.

Theology

The Hindu View:

Hindus have two views on euthanasia:
1- By helping to end a painful life a person is performing a good deed and so fulfilling their
moral obligations
2- By helping to end a life, even one filled with suffering, a person is disturbing the timing of the
cycle of death and rebirth. This is a bad thing to do, and those involved in the euthanasia will
take on the remaining karma of the patient.
The Muslim View:
Muslims are against euthanasia. They believe that all human life is sacred because it is given
by Allah, and that Allah chooses how long each person will live. Human beings should not
interfere in this.
The Christian View:
Christians are mostly against euthanasia. The arguments are usually based on the argument
that life is a gift from God and that human beings are made in God's image. Birth and death
are part of the life processes which God has created, so we should respect them. Therefore no
human being has the authority to take the life of any innocent person, even if that person
wants to die.
The above views lead to one conclusion i.e. any form that involves unnatural termination of
life, whether an attempt to suicide, assisted suicide or euthanasia, is illegal. In India, even an
attempt to suicide is punishable goes to show the extent of creditability accorded to the
sanctity of life and the right to life as a whole.
No life that breathes with human breath has ever truly longed for death
Indian Law on Euthanasia
Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law
Like his right to life, does a person have a right to death also?
The law awoke in 1994 by way of a petition filed by P. Rathinam directed against the
constitutional validity of Section 309 IPC, which deals with punishment for attempt to

commit suicide. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, thereby legalizing suicide
and rendering as unconstitutional punishment for abetting of suicide.
In this case a corollary was drawn between euthanasia and suicide. The judgment stated that
in cases of passive euthanasia, the consent of the patient is one of the pre-requisites. So, if one
could legally commit suicide, he could also give consent for being allowed to die logically.
However, whatever progress was there came to a grinding halt in 1996, and the state of
confusion returned. The same court now upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 309
(Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such
offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for term which may extend to one year)
and 306 (If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine) thereby legalizing the same.

Legal status of Euthanasia around the world

There are a number of different jurisdictions, which allow euthanasia and/or assisted suicide
to varying degrees.

Netherlands:
Euthanasia is regulated by the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act 2002.
It states that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are not punishable if the attending
physician acts in accordance with the criteria of due care. These criteria concern the patient's
request, the patient's suffering (unbearable and hopeless), the information provided to the
patient, the presence of reasonable alternatives, consultation of another physician and the
applied method of ending life.
Belgium:
Belgium became the second country in Europe after Netherlands to legalize the practice of
euthanasia in September 2002. The Belgian law sets out conditions under which suicide can
be practiced without giving Doctors a license to kill. Patients wishing to end their own lives
must be conscious when the demand is made and repeat their request for euthanasia. They
have to be under constant and unbearable physical or psychological pain; resulting from an
accident or incurable illness.

Switzerland:
Switzerland has an unusual position on assisted suicide: it is legally permitted and can be
performed by non-physicians. However, euthanasia is illegal, the difference between assisted
suicide and euthanasia being that while in the former the patient administers the lethal
injection himself, in the latter a doctor or some other person administers it. Article 115 of the
Swiss penal code, considers assisting suicide a crime if, and only if, the motive is selfish.
The Swiss law is unique because
(1) The recipient need not be a Swiss national,
(2) a physician need not be involved. Many persons from other countries, especially
Germany, go to Switzerland to undergo euthanasia.
Currently in the UK, any person found to be assisting suicide is breaking the law and can be
convicted of assisting suicide or attempting to do so.
United States of America:
Active Euthanasia is illegal in all states in U.S.A., but physician assisted dying is legal in the
states of Oregon, Washington and Montana. As already pointed out above, the difference
between euthanasia and physician assisted suicide lies in who administers the lethal
medication. In the former, the physician or someone else administers it, while in the latter the
patient himself does so, though on the advice of the doctor.
Oregon:
Oregon was the first state in U.S.A. to legalize physician assisted death. And after the Oregon
Law was enacted about 200 persons have had euthanasia in Oregon.
Washington:
Washington was the second state in U.S.A. which allowed the practice of physician assisted
death in the year 2008 by passing the Washington Death with Dignity Act, 2008.
Montana:

Montana was the third state in U.S.A. to legalize physician assisted deaths, but this was done
by the State judiciary and not the legislature. On December 31, 2009, the Montana Supreme
Court delivered its verdict in the case of Baxter v. Montana permitting physicians to prescribe
lethal indication.
Euthanasia Cases in India
1- Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug Vs. Union Of India & Ors. on 7 March, 2011
Aruna Shanbaugh is bedridden in a comatose state for 37 years, after a brutal sexual assault
by a hospital sweeper on November 27 th, 1973, at the Mumbais King Edward Memorial
Hospital.
Petitioning Aruna's cause is her friend and social activist, Pinki Virani, who has also written a
book on her. In her plea to the court, Pinki Virani said that Aruna, who is lying in a highly
vegetative state for more than three decades, should not suffer anymore and must be given the
dignity

due

to

her.

The court said that only passive euthanasia, which involves withdrawal of life support
systems, could be permissible provided the High Court approves it. The opinion of close
relatives of the patient, the government, doctors and staff of KEM Mumbai will have to be
sought

before

the

court

can

permit

passive

euthanasia.

Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra rejected the petition stating that
active euthanasia is not permissible by law and "there is no provision under the statute or the
constitution" to support it.
2.

Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab on 21 March 1996

The appellants Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were convicted by the Trial Court
under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and each sentenced to six years rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for nine
months, for abetting the commission of suicide by Kulwant Kaur. On appeal to the High
Court, the conviction of both has been maintained but the sentence of Gian Kaur alone has
been reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
2- C.A. Thomas Master And Etc. vs Union Of India on 23 June, 2000

Mr. C. A. Thomas Master, who was then 80 years old, and a retired teacher. The petitioner has
a daughter, son-in-law, as also his son and grand-children. The petitioner says that his family
members are well-settled. He is in a good mental and physical state. The petitioner, therefore,
states that he has no desire to live any further, and it is high time he quits this world.
However, as a law abiding citizen, he does not want to commit suicide, but he wants to
voluntarily put an end to his life or donate his bodily organs to facilitate voluntary death.
The Kerala High Court decided that no distinction can be made between suicide as ordinarily
understood, and the right to voluntarily put to an end to one's life, as distinguished by the
petitioners. In our view, in either case, it would amount to suicide and thus attract the
provisions of Sections 306 and 309 of the I.P.C. depending upon the facts of each case. If that
be the true legal position, none of the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners can be granted.
3- Jeet Narayan of Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh in 2008 pleaded for euthanasia for his four sons Durgesh (22), Sarvesh (18), Brijesh (13) and Sushil (10) - all crippled and paralyzed below
the neck. Narayan wrote to the president of India, but his plea was rejected.
4- Dilip Machua a 30 year old slag picker from Jamshedpur in Jharkhand who was paralyzed
due to an accident in November 2008, wrote to President Pratibha Patil for mercy death. He
died later.
Euthanasia Cases Around the world

Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland (1993) AC 789 HL.

Anthony Bland, in March 1993, ended up in persistent vegetative state after suffering
severe brain damage in the Hillsborough football stadium stampede. After three years,
a court allowed the withdrawal of life-prolonging treatment on him. He was the first
patient in British legal history to be allowed to die.

Nancy Cruzan of Missouri had a major car accident in 1983. She continued to be fed through
a surgically-implanted gastrostomy tube. Nearly eight years after the accident, in 1990 a

Missouri circuit court allowed the removal of her artificial feeding system. Within two hours
after the ruling, Cruzan's doctor removed the tube and she died.

Karen Ann Quinlan collapsed on 15 th April, 1975. She was 21 years old. Within hours, she
entered coma from which she could never recover. Her parents, knew their daughter would
not want to be kept alive by extraordinary means. A year later, as Karen lay in a persistent
vegetative state the courts finally allowed her treatment to be stopped; but artificial feeding
was continued and she was maintained as a living corpse until June 1985, when she
eventually died of pneumonia.

Terri Schiavo case: A legal battle between the husband and parents of Terri Schiavo, a Florida
woman who was first went into coma and then a vegetative state after suffering a cardiac
arrest in 1990. A feeding tube was used to keep her alive. The issue was whether the feeding
tube should be disconnected, thereby allowing her to die. Schiavo died on 31 March 2005.

Nancy B v. Hotel-Diem de Quebec (1992) 86 DLR (4th) 385 where in a case before the
Quebec Supreme Court, a 25 year old woman with incurable neurological disorder refused
ventilation, the Court accepted her prayer to stop ventilation.

Arguments for Euthanasia

1. Can quickly and humanely end a patients suffering, allowing them to die with
dignity.
2. Can help to shorten the grief and suffering of the patients loved ones.
3. Everyone has the right to decide how they should die.
4. Death is a private matter, and if you are not hurting anyone else, the state should not
interfere.

5. Keeping people alive costs a lot of money, which could be used to save other people's
lives
6. Human life is sacred it should not be degraded by reducing the quality of life. When a
person has no quality of life, then they should be able to choose to die because it is
unfair to force them to continue it.
Arguments against Euthanasia

1. Legalizing the deliberate killing of humans fundamentally undermines the basis of

law and public morality.

2. Even if someone sincerely wants to be euthanasia this may well be due to depression
or to a misapprehension. Palliative specialists report that such requests are often used
by patients to assess their worth and value to others. A positive response merely
confirms their worst fears and such a decision, once acted upon, is irreversible.

3. It would undermine the financing and provision of proper geriatric and palliative
care: with stretched budgets euthanasia would be seen as the cost-effective option.

4. It would fundamentally undermine the relationships between elderly or dependent

relatives and their families, with overwhelming pressures being applied on people to
take the honorable course and not be a burden.

5. The victims would predominantly be the most disadvantaged members of society: the
old, poor, disabled, infirm and unemployed.

Does Euthanasia lead to devaluation of life?

Permitting euthanasia could diminish respect for life. Allowing euthanasia for terminally ill
individuals, who request it, could result in a situation where all terminally ill individuals
would feel pressurized into availing of euthanasia. There are fears that such individuals might
begin to view themselves as a burden on their family, friends and society or as a strain on
limited healthcare resources. Opponents of euthanasia also contend that permitting individuals
to end their lives may lead to a situation where certain groups within society e.g. the
terminally ill, severely disabled individuals or the elderly would be euthanized as a rule.
Legalizing the practice would not devalue life or result in pressure being put on individuals to
end their lives but would allow those with no hope of recovery to die with dignity and without
unnecessary suffering.

Conclusion
Views, ideas and laws of euthanasia vary greatly from country to country and from individual
to individual. Euthanasia has been at the center for a moral debate for long. The individuals
right over his/her life and the values placed on human life by the society seem poles opposites
in this debate. There has been a clear moral distinction between merely allowing dying and
actually causing or deliberately hastening someone's death.
In India also, the debate on euthanasia has again become a live issue.
Considering its moral and ethical values of the concept and also its legal conviction, I am of
firm belief and opinion that India must never practice euthanasia by law. One last thing to
think about is Are we preserving life or postponing death? In this regard it would be quite
worthwhile to remember the words of Lord Edmund Davis killing both pain and patient
may be good morals, but is far from certain that it is good law.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1374554/
2. Law commission 196th Report on Medical Treatment to terminally ill patients
(Protection on Patients and Medical Practitioners) on March 2006
3. K.D Gaur, The Indian Penal Code, 3rd Edition. Universal Law Publishing Co.
4. www.religioustolerence.org/euthanasia

available as Euthanasia and Physician

Assisted suicide.
5. Nandy Apurba. Principles of Forensic Medicine, 2nd Edition reprint 2005,
38.

pp: 37-

6. Sharma B.R. Euthanasia: An overview of the Journey from inception to

implementation, J Punjab Acad Forensic Med Toxicol. 2005, Vol.5, pp: 33-34.
7. Gupta B.D. Euthanasia: Personal View Point, J Punjab Acad Forensic Med Toxicol.
2004, Vol.4, pp: 17 20.
8. Westlaw India