India’s Euthanasia Problem
Words by Chinmayee Das
A clear distinction between passive and active euthanasia is essential to understanding the legality of euthanasia in India. Passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal of life support from a patient in a non-responsive state who is near death. In contrast, active euthanasia involves administering a lethal substance to a patient with an incurable disorder to end prolonged suffering intentionally. Now, Euthanasia is not entirely illegal in India. In 2018, on the 9th of March, the Supreme Court of India passed a judgment legalising the practice of passive Euthanasia. According to the Supreme Court of India's judgment in the Aruna Shaunbaug case, passive euthanasia is legally permissible under specific conditions. Active euthanasia remains illegal under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. This legal distinction emphasises the ethical complexities surrounding end-of-life decisions. However, the act of dosing someone to their death is still considered illegal, as well as questioning the moral values of the person.
The distinction between passive and active euthanasia is nuanced and may be inadvertently overlooked. Passive euthanasia is subject to specific legal and ethical conditions, and may be considered the most appropriate option in some instances, whereas active euthanasia is generally regarded as morally unacceptable and is subject to severe legal penalties. Nonetheless, ethical arguments in favour of active euthanasia emphasise patient autonomy and compassion, asserting that individuals should have the right to make end-of-life decisions when experiencing intolerable suffering. Clear differentiation between these forms is necessary to prevent ethical and legal conflicts.
Why is active Euthanasia illegal?
Active euthanasia is generally considered both illegal and unethical for both the patient and the assisting individual. The rationale includes the belief that not all deaths are necessarily painful and that perspectives on suffering and end-of-life choices vary. Some cultural and religious traditions regard active euthanasia as an act of compassion, emphasising relief from unbearable pain and the importance of individual autonomy. These diverse perspectives highlight the ethical complexity of active euthanasia and the influence of varying moral frameworks on end-of-life decision-making.
With the advancement of medical research, the treatment of diseases that were once considered incurable is now possible. There is a solution to many problems, and with experimentation, proper results can often be achieved. In many cases, early diagnosis and treatment can improve a patient's chances of recovery or disease management, potentially leading to a more normal life. However, it is essential to acknowledge the limitations of medical development. Not every condition can be effectively treated, and the emergence of new, incurable diseases presents ongoing challenges.
Moreover, the available treatments do not always guarantee positive outcomes, and some may come with significant side effects or be costly and inaccessible to many patients. This duality between medical advances and limitations contributes to the complexity of medical decision-making, emphasising the importance of informed and balanced discussions in considering options like euthanasia. The patient requesting euthanasia may be overwhelmed by the emotional distress caused by their condition, which can cloud their judgment.
It is essential to differentiate between a patient's mental competence and their emotional state when evaluating their request for euthanasia. Legal tests for competence are necessary to ensure that fear or distress does not equate to a loss of capacity to make decisions. This distinction can help to address concerns over whether the patient is genuinely making a rational decision. Hence, from a logical perspective, active euthanasia could be viewed as a complex ethical issue rather than plainly immoral. However, passive euthanasia remains legal in a few countries, including India, primarily due to legal precedents like the Aruna Shaunbaug case.
What caused the legalisation of passive euthanasia?
Passive euthanasia became legal in India on 2018, 9th of March after the Court of India's ruling on Aruna Ramchandra Shaunbag’s medical case. The story of Aruna, a nurse at King Edward Memorial in Mumbai, is a rather disturbing and painful one. The year was 1973, and at the mere age of 25, while working in a hospital, Aruna was attacked by the ward boy, Sohanlal. The attack was deplorable; she was choked and sexually assaulted in the basement of the hospital. The choking led to cutting off the blood supply to her brain, causing irreparable damage and putting her in a state of permanent coma. It was not until the next morning that a cleaner discovered her.
After being left in a permanent coma due to the attack, a plea for euthanasia was filed on January 24, 2011. The Supreme Court of India initially rejected this plea, as euthanasia was considered illegal and immoral at the time. Unfortunately, Aruna passed away from pneumonia on May 18, 2015. Her case became pivotal, highlighting the need for legal reforms regarding euthanasia in India. Had passive euthanasia been legal during her time, Aruna and her loved ones might have been spared 42 years of prolonged suffering. Her story ultimately contributed to the significant legal and medical changes leading to the eventual legalisation of passive euthanasia.
Should active Euthanasia be legal?
Active euthanasia can be seen as beneficial in certain aspects. It allows the person to decide their own path, whether it should lead to immediate death or a path of treatment. It will enable a more straightforward, quicker death, without the pain of suffering for a long time due to an incurable or difficult disease. However, this might raise questions about the moral grounds of the people involved in the act, as well as the patient's sanity. This raises a broader ethical question: Whose interests prevail when autonomy conflicts with societal ethics? Individuals may wish to make personal choices about their own lives, but these decisions can sometimes clash with the communal moral norms that value the sanctity of life. Exploring this tension between individual autonomy and societal expectations can offer deeper insights into the complexities surrounding the legal and ethical considerations of active euthanasia.
Chinmayee Das is a curious and reflective writer based in India who blends logic with emotion, making complex ideas feasible and engaging.
Instagram - ch_nmayee
Thanks for reading.
If you enjoyed it and think you could contribute something similar (or better), we’d love to get you involved. Drop us a message or an email to find out how you could write for Pop Valley.
popvalleypress@gmail.com