A PROJECT

ON

EUTHANASIA

SUBJECT: ENGLISH

SUPERVISED BY : SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. PRERNA AGARWAL SUNIL SAINI

Assistant Professor Semester- 1st , Section-B

S.S. Jain Subodh Law College

Mansarovar,Jaipur
April , 2019

1
 DECLARATION

Date:

I hereby declare that the project entitled ‘ Euthanasia ’ is submitted by me in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for award of the degree of B.A. LL.B from S.S. Jain Subodh Law College,
Mansarovar, Jaipur .It is a result of my own work and efforts . Any material used or scripted
herein by any other author/researcher/commentator and used hereinafter has been thoroughly
acknowledged. The present work has been accepted for any degree, and is also not being
currently submitted for any other degree.

SUNIL SAINI

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A research work of such great scope and precision could never have been possible without
great co-operation from all sides. Contributions of various people have resulted in this effort. Firstly,
I would like to thank God for the knowledge he has bestowed upon me.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Pererna Agarwal without whose
valuable support and guidance , this project would have been impossible . I would like to thank the
library staff for having put up with my persistent queries and having helped me out with the
voluminous materials needed for this work. I would also like to thank my seniors for having guided
me and culminate this acknowledgement by thanking my friends for having kept the flame of
competition burning, which spurred me on through these days.

And finally my parents , who have been a support to me throughout my life and has helped
me, guided me to perform my best in all interests of my life, and all my elders who have always
inculcated the best of their qualities in me.

Sunil Saini

3
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Sunil Saini student of B.A.L.L.B. of S. S. Jain Subodh Law College ,
Jaipur has completed her project on Euthanasia under the guidance of Dr. Prerna Agarwal
assistant professor, S. S. Jain Subodh Law College ,Jaipur.

This project is an original , independent work to the best of my knowledge and has not
been published anywhere and has been pursued solely for academic interest.

Dr. PRERNA AGARWAL

Assistant Professor

4
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The methodology used in this project is doctrinal includes accessing reference books and other
relevant sources from library and using secondary sources as well. The secondary sources used
in this project include the library of , S.S.Jain Subodh Law College ,Mansarovar, Jaipur and
other sources from the internet . On the basis of the knowledge gained from all of the above
mentioned sources a self-analysis of the topic under the study has been presented in the project.
All sources referred to have been given due recognition . The dimensions of this research include
studying of the judgment of the case under the study and also other cases which relied upon the
judgment of this case.

5
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION
2. MEANING AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF EUTHANASIA
3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
4. EUTHANASIA AND SUICIDE
5. TRENDS OF EUTHANASIA IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES
6. CONCLUSION
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY

6
 INTRODUCTION
Every human being is desirous to live and enjoy the fruits of life till he dies. But
sometimes a human being is desirous to end his life by use of unnatural means. To end
one’s life in an unnatural way is a sign of abnormality. When a person ends his life by his
own act we call it “suicide” but to end life of a person by others though on the request of
the deceased, is called “euthanasia” or “mercy killing”.
Euthanasia is mainly associated with people with terminal illness or who have become
incapacitated and don’t want to go through the rest of their life suffering. A severely
handicapped or terminally ill person should have the right to choose to live or die. The
right to choose to live or die should not be a right allocated for bodied individuals of
sound mind but to all human beings. Euthanasia is a controversial issue which
encompasses the morals, values and beliefs of our society.
Euthanasia has been a much debated subject through out the world. The debate has
become increasingly significant because of the recent developments in Netherlands and
England euthanasia has been allowed. As a result many of the nations across the world
are now hotly debating whether or not to follow the Dutch example. Recently our
Supreme Court in Aruna Shanbaug case1 has already given its decision on this point and
allowed passive euthanasia in India.

1
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011(3) SCALE 298 :
MANU/SC/0176/2011

7
 MEANING AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF EUTHANASIA
According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edition) euthanasia means the act or practice of
killing or bringing about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or
condition, esp. a painful one, for reasons of mercy. Encyclopedia of ‘Crime and Justice’,
explains euthanasia as an act of death which will provide a relief from a distressing or
intolerable condition of living. Simply euthanasia is the practice of mercifully ending a
person’s life in order to release the person from an incurable disease, intolerable
suffering, misery and pain of the life. The term euthanasia was derived from the Greek
words “eu ”and “thanatos ”which means “good death” or “easy death ”.It is also known
as Mercy Killing. Euthanasia has been defined as the administration of drugs with the
explicit intention of ending the patient’s life, at the patient’s request2. Euthanasia literally
means putting a person to painless death especially in case of incurable suffering or when
life becomes purposeless as a result of mental or physical handicap3. Euthanasia or mercy
killing is the practice of killing a person for giving relief from incurable pain or suffering
or allowing or causing painless death when life has become meaningless and disagreeable4.
In the modern context euthanasia is limited to the killing of patients by
doctors at the request of the patient in order to free him of excruciating pain or from
terminal illness. Thus the basic intention behind euthanasia is to ensure a less painful
death to a person who is in any case going to die after a long period of suffering.
Euthanasia may be classified as follows:-
(1) Active or Positive
(2) Passive or negative (also known as letting-die)
(3) Voluntary
(4) Involuntary
(5) Non-Voluntary

2
Brody, Baruch. (1998). Life and Death Decission Making, New York; Oxford University
Press.
3
. Dr. Parikh, C.K. (2006). Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudences, Forensic
Medicine and Toxicology. 6th Edition, Page 1.55. New Delhi, CBS Publishers &
Distributors
4
Nandy, Apurba. (1995). Principles of Forensic Medicine, 1st Edition, Page 38. Kolkata,
New Central Book Agency (P) Ltd
8
Active or Positive: - Active euthanasia involves painlessly putting individuals to death for
merciful reasons, as when a doctor administer lethal dose of medication to a patient.
Passive or negative: - euthanasia is passive when death is caused because a treatment that
is sustaining the life of the patient is held off and the patient dies as a result thereof. For
example, withdrawing life supporting devices from a serious patient, removing which, the
patient dies. In "passive euthanasia" the doctors are not actively killing anyone; they are
simply not saving him5.
Voluntary: - it is voluntary when the euthanasia is practiced with the expressed desire and
consent of the patient. voluntary euthanasia is primarily concerned with the right to
choice of the terminally ill patient who decides to end his or her life, choice which serves
his/her best interest and also that of everyone else.
Involuntary: - when the patient is killed without an expressed wish to this effect, it is a
form of involuntary euthanasia. It refers to cases wherein a competent patient’s life is
brought to an end against the wishes of that patient that oppose euthanasia; and would
clearly amount to murder.
Non-Voluntary:- it refers to ending the life of a person who is not mentally competent to
make an informed request to die, such as a comatose patient. In Non-Voluntary
euthanasia the patient has left no such living will or given any advance directives, as he
may not have had an opportunity to do so, or may not have anticipated any such accident
or eventuality. In cases of non voluntary euthanasia, it is often the family members, who
make the decision.
There are various ways for euthanasia. The most popular methods include –
1. Lethal injection - Injection of a lethal dose of a drug, such as a known poison,
KCl, etc.
2. Asphyxiation - The most popular gas used is Carbon monoxide (CO). Nerve
gases like sarin & tabun etc. are also added in small amounts to fully ensure
death. One of the methods is also Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s death machine
(mercitron, thanatron). He is also known as Dr.Death. It’s a unique method in
which a person can end his life himself.

5
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011(3) SCALE 298;
MANU/SC/0176/2011

9
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

age is replete with numerous examples of suicides committed on religious grounds. The
Mahabharata and the Ramayana are also full of instances of religious suicides.
Most Hindus would say that a doctor should not accept a patient's request for euthanasia
since this will cause the soul and body to be separated at an unnatural time. The result
will damage the karma of both doctor and patient. Other Hindus believe that euthanasia
cannot be allowed because it breaches the teaching of ahimsa (doing no harm). However,
some Hindus say that by helping to end a painful life a person is performing a good deed
and so fulfilling their moral obligations. Govardana and Kulluka, while writingBefore discussing the
legal position of euthanasia in India, let us try to find out its
historical background.
The right to die or end one’s life is not something new or unknown to human civilization.
In ancient Greece and Rome helping others die or putting them to death was considered
permissible in some situations. For example, in the Greek city of Sparta newborns with
severe birth defects were put to death. Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly was an
approved custom in several ancient societies. Many ancient texts including the Bible, the
Koran and the Rig-Veda mention self destruction or suicide. In India, the history of Vedic
commentaries on Manu, observed that a man may undertake the mahaprastha (great
departure) on a journey which ends in death when he is incurably diseased or meets with
a great misfortune, and that, it is not opposed to Vedic rules which forbid suicide.6

6
Laws of Manu, translated by George Buhler, Sacred Books of the East by F. Maxmuller
(1967 reprint). Vol. 25, page – 206

10
There are two Hindu views on euthanasia:
By helping to end a painful life a person is performing a good deed and so fulfilling their
moral obligations.
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 same argument suggests that keeping a person artificially alive on a life-support
machines would also be a bad thing to do. However, the use of a life-support machine as
part of a temporary attempt at healing would not be a bad thing. The ideal death is a
conscious death, and this means that palliative treatments will be a problem if they reduce
mental alertness.
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.
a) Life is sacred –
Euthanasia and suicide are not included among the reasons allowed for killing in Islam
Do not take life, which Allah made sacred, other than in the course of justice.
If anyone kills a person - unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land- it
would be as if he killed the whole people.
b) Suicide and euthanasia are explicitly forbidden
"Destroy not yourselves. Surely Allah is ever merciful to you.
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.
Sikhs derive their ethics largely from the teachings of their scripture, Guru Granth Sahib,
and the Sikh Code of Conduct (The Rehat Maryada). The Sikh Gurus rejected suicide
(and by extension, euthanasia) as an interference in God's plan. Suffering, they said, was
part of the operation of karma, and human beings should not only accept it without
complaint but act so as to make the best of the situation that karma has given them.

11
 EUTHANASIA AND SUICIDE

Suicide and euthanasia cannot be treated as one and the same thing. They are two
different acts. Therefore, we shall have to make a distinction between ‘euthanasia’ and
‘suicide.’ Suicide as mentioned in Oxford Dictionary7 means the act of killing yourself
deliberately. Therefore, suicide could be termed as the intentional termination of one’s
life by self- induced means for various reasons, such as, frustration in love, failure in
examinations or in getting a good job, but mostly it is due to depression. Euthanasia has
not been defined in the religious books but since it is very close to concept of suicide,
therefore it can be presumed that it is prohibited by all religions. In Indian law intention
is the basis for penal liability. An act is not criminal act if it is committed or omitted
without the intention and law of crimes in India is based on the famous Roman maxim,
“Actus non facit reum nisi men sit rea.” Now applying the above maxim in cases of
euthanasia one may conclude that since the victim has given the consent to die therefore,
the accused is not liable for any offence. But does giving a consent for killing a person
absolve the offender from his criminal liability is very important question. If answer to
this question is in affirmative then euthanasia is not an offence. But the Indian law is very
clear on this point. One may argue that giving the consent absolves a person from liability
or he may plead the defense of “volenti non fit injuria.” Law relating to consent as
contained in Indian Penal Code is very exhaustive and leaves no ambiguity to explain it.
Section 87 of the Indian Penal Code clearly lays down that consent cannot be pleaded as
a defense in case where the consent is given to cause death or grievous hurt. The Bombay
High Court in Maruti Shripati Dubal case8 has attempted to make a distinction between
suicide and euthanasia or mercy killing. According to the court the suicide by its very
nature is an act of self killing or termination of one’s own life by one’s act without
Oxford University Press.

assistance from others. But euthanasia means the intervention of others human agency to

7
. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. (2000). Sixth Edition. ;
Oxford University Press
8
Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharastra; 1987 Cri.L.J 743 (Bomb)

12
end the life. Mercy killing therefore cannot be considered in the same footing as on
suicide. Mercy killing is nothing but a homicide, whatever is the circumstance in which it
is committed. In another case9 the Bombay High Court also observed that 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 and 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 is thus not suicide. 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.
Herein, the concept of assisted suicide is also involved, which can be defined as
providing an individual with the information, guidance and means to take his or her own
life with the intention that it will be used for this purpose. Assisted suicide is
distinguished from active euthanasia in the sense that the in the former, person must take
deliberate steps to bring about his or her own death. Medical personnel may provide
assistance, but the patient commits the act of suicide while in active euthanasia, it is the
doctor who ends the life of the patient. When a doctor helps people to kill themselves it is
called ‘doctor assisted suicide’.
Our Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab10, clearly held that euthanasia and
assisted suicide are not lawful in our country. The court, however, referred to the
principles laid down by the House of Lords in Airedale11 case, where the House of Lords
accepted that withdrawal of life supporting systems on the basis of informed medical
opinion, would be lawful because such withdrawal would only allow the patient who is
beyond recovery to die a normal death, where there is no longer any duty to prolong life.

9
Naresh Marotrao Sakhre v. Union of India; 1995 Cri.L.J 95 (Bomb)
10
1996 (2) SCC 648 : AIR 1996 SC 946
11
Airdale NHS Trust v. Bland, 1993(1) All ER 821 (HL)
13
 TRENDS OF EUTHANASIA IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES

The laws pertaining to euthanasia and the practice of euthanasia throughout the world,
has gained importance (and continues to be a significant contention for debates) for the
most part, in the second half of the 20th Century. There are several instances pertaining
to suicide and euthanasia in different countries, some of which have been illustrated
below.
Netherlands
In April 2002, Netherlands became the first European country to legalize euthanasia and
assisted suicide. Euthanasia in the Netherlands is regulated by the "Termination of Life
on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) 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. It legalizes euthanasia and physician
assisted suicide in very specific cases, under very specific circumstances. . 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 in committing suicide
is punishable with three years of imprisonment or fine. But the law allows a medical
review board to suspend prosecution of doctors who performed euthanasia when each of
the following conditions is fulfilled -
The patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
The patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the
request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological
illness, or drugs).
The patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
There must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs
to confirm the conditions.
The death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or
patient, in which case the doctor must be present
The patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age
require the consent of their parents).

14
Australia
The Northern Territory of Australia became the first country to legalize euthanasia by
passing the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, 1996. It was held to be legal in the case
Wake v. Northern Territory of Australia12 by the Supreme Court of Northern Territory of
Australia. But later a subsequent legislation that was the Euthanasia Laws Act, 1997
made it again illegal by repealing the Northern Territory legislation.
United States
Laws in the United States maintain the distinction between passive and active euthanasia.
Euthanasia has been made totally illegal by the United States Supreme Court in the cases
Washington v. Glucksberg13 and Vacco v. Quill14 but physician assisted dying is legal in
the states of Oregon under the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, 1997, in Washington
under Washington Death with Dignity Act, 2008 and in Montana by the State judiciary and
not the legislature.
Canada
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 Canada, physician assisted
suicide is illegal as per section 241(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Supreme
Court of Canada in Sue Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General)15, said that in
the case of assisted suicide the interest of the state will prevail over individual’s interest.
Belgium
The Belgian Parliament legislation ‘Belgium Act on Euthanasia’ was made euthanasia
legal in May, 2002 which is quite similar to that passed in the Netherlands.
Switzerland
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. It does not require the involvement of physician
nor is that the patient terminally ill. It only requires that the motive must be unselfish.
Switzerland has an unusual position on assisted suicide; it is legally permitted and can be
performed by non-physicians. However, euthanasia is illegal,
Both in Russia and Spain the euthanasia and the physical assisted suicide are illegal.

12
. (1996) 109 NTR 1
13
521 US 702 (1997)
14
521 US 793 (1997)
15
(1993) 3 SCR 519
15
In England, the House of Lords in Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland16 permitted nonvoluntary
euthanasia in case of patients in a persistent vegetative state. It was a case
relating to withdrawal of artificial measures for continuance of life by a physician. It was
held that it would be unlawful to administer treatment to an adult who is conscious and of
sound mind, without his consent. Such a person is completely at liberty to decline to
undergo treatment, even if the result of his doing so will be that he will die. It was further
held that if a person, due to accident or some other cause becomes unconscious and is
thus not able to give or with-hold consent to medical treatment, in that situation it is
lawful for medical men to apply such treatment as in their informed opinion is in the best
interests of the unconscious patient. It is not lawful for a doctor to administer a drug to
his patient to bring about his death, even though that course is prompted by a
humanitarian desire to end his suffering, however great that suffering may be. All the
judges of the House of Lords in this case were agreed that Anthony Bland should be
allowed to die.
After the Airedale17 case as decided by the House of Lords it has been followed in a
number of cases in U.K., and the law is now fairly well settled that in the case of
incompetent patients, if the doctors act on the basis of informed medical opinion, and
withdraw the artificial life support system if it is in the patient’s best interest, the said act
cannot be regarded as a crime. The question, however, remains as to who will decide
what the patient’s best interest is where he is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS).
Though there are large numbers of decisions of Courts in U.S.A. in this connection, often
taking diverse approaches.
Justice Cardozo, while on the Court of Appeals of New York observed that “Every
human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done
with his own body, and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s
consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.18”

16
1993(1) All ER 821 (HL)
17
ibid
18
Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 129-30, 105 N.E. 92, 93
(1914).

16
 CONCLUSION

No such law could be guaranteed to be free to the possibility, if not the likelihood, of
abuse, chiefly centered on the lives of other sick persons who did not want their lives
taken. An especially dangerous aspect is that such abuse may be easily made
undetectable. Thus although mercy killing appears to be morally justifiable, its fool-proof
practicability seems near to impossible.
After the Gian Kaur’s19 case, suicide has become illegal per se, but the same could not be
said for euthanasia. Recently the judgment of our Supreme Court in Aruna Ramchandra
Shanbaug v. Union of India20 legalized the passive euthanasia and observed that passive
euthanasia is permissible under supervision of law in exceptional circumstances but
active euthanasia is not permitted under the law.
In view of the discussion above I believe that voluntary euthanasia should also be
allowed in India and that the legislature should step in and make a special law dealing
with all the aspects of euthanasia. So we need a law to legalize euthanasia with adequate
safeguards. The recommendations laid down in the Reports of Law Commission of India
and guidelines given in the Aruna’s21 case are to be taken into consideration when any
law on that point is to be framed to prevent the mal practices and misuse of euthanasia.
Besides, if the suggestions laid down above are implemented then the chances of misuse
of euthanasia would be greatly reduced.

19
1996 (2) SCC 648 : AIR 1996 SC 946
20
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, 2011(3) SCALE 298 :
MANU0176/SC//2011
21
. ibid
17
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1) Vij Krishan. The textbook of ForensicMedicine and Toxicology, 3rd Edition,2005, pp: 532-534.

2) Parikh C. K. Textbook of MedicalJurisprudence, Forensic Medicine andToxicology. 6th Edition,

reprint 2000, pp:1.55-1.57.

3) www.religioustolerence.org/euthanasia,available as Euthanasia and PhysicianAssisted suicide.

4) Nandy Apurba. Principles of ForensicMedicine, 2nd Edition reprint 2005, pp: 37-38.

5) Sharma B.R. “Euthanasia: An overview ofthe Journey from inception toimplementation”, J Punjab

Acad ForensicMed Toxicol. 2005, Vol.5, pp: 33-34.

6) Gupta B.D. “Euthanasia: Personal ViewPoint”, J Punjab Acad Forensic MedToxicol. 2004, Vol.4,

pp: 17 – 20.

7) Reddy KSN. The Essentials of ForensicMedicine and Toxicology, 25th Edition, 2006, pp: 40-41.

18