A fundamental right that is guaranteed to every Indian citizen is the right to life. It is covered under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which provides that only legal procedures may be used to take away someone’s life or personal freedom.
This article ensures that everyone in India has the right to life and personal freedom, regardless of caste, creed, or gender. It ensures that no one’s life or freedom can be stolen from them unless the proper legal procedure is followed. This means that any limitations placed on a person’s freedom or right to life must be legitimate and adhere to a fair, just, and reasonable process.
In accordance with Article 21, everyone has the right to a “dignified life,” which also includes the right to adequate nutrition, housing, and medical treatment as well as the right to be treated with respect and dignity at all times.
The right to a clean and healthy environment, the right to education, and the right to privacy are just a few of the other rights that the Indian judiciary has found are included by Article 21. The judiciary has additionally determined that no situation, not even one apparently related to national security or an emergency, has the authority to suspend a person’s right to life and personal freedom.
Also, read 3 Amazing things about Central Administrative Tribunals
Rights to Die
The freedom to choose one’s own method of death is referred to as the right to self-determination, also known as the right to die. This includes the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment as well as the decision to commit suicide or use euthanasia.
A contentious topic that raises several ethical, legal, and theological issues is the right to die. Some argue that it is a violation of people’s autonomy and dignity to deny them the ability to choose how and when they pass away, especially in cases where they are dealing with a terminal illness or extreme pain.
Euthanasia is the practice of killing anyone against their will if they have a disease that cannot be cured, but in India, it is only limited to those killings which are done for ill persons and it is left up to the family to decide whether or not the life support will be removed. A common man typically thinks of dying when the pain from which the person is suffering is unbearable, and if he does so voluntarily then it is referred to as assisted suicide.
The family members of the patients are also relieved from experiencing physical, mental, and financial stress because euthanasia is a way to end a terrible life. In the case of euthanasia, patients also have the option to decline medical care; however, if a doctor goes against the patient’s stated desires and administers medical care, he may be prosecuted with assault, and the patient is free to exercise his right to life. The fundamental freedoms and rights are protected by the constitution, where a positive right also encompasses a negative right.
For instance, the right to free speech encompasses the right to refrain from speaking, etc. Nonetheless, many people are opposed to legalizing euthanasia and make claims that doing so will degrade human dignity and violate the concept of the sanctity of life. It can be used as a “cover for murder,” leaving the sick and disabled more exposed than the general public.
The right to die was first brought up in the Bombay High Court case of Maruti Sripati Dubal (1987). In this case, the Bombay High Court struck down Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which is used to punish suicide attempts, and ruled that it was unconstitutional. The high court also ruled that under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to die is a part of the right to life. The Supreme Court rendered a decision of a similar nature in the case of P Rathinam v. Union of India (1994).
However, the Supreme Court overturned the ruling in P Rathinam v. Union of India in the case of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), ruling that active and passive euthanasia is not permitted in India under Article 21 of the Constitution and upholding section 309 of the IPC as constitutionally valid.
Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India, however, was a significant decision that addressed euthanasia and the right to life. In this instance, Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug was a nurse at the Parel, Bombay-based King Edward Memorial Hospital. On the evening of November 27, 1973, a hospital employee attacked her and used a dog chain to snag her by the neck. The sweeper also attempted to rape her, but when he saw she was menstruation, he anally raped her instead. He tightened the chain around her neck to keep her from moving or doing any harm.
The following morning, a cleaner discovered her lifeless, bloodied corpse on the floor. Since the aforementioned incident, 36 years have passed. She was unable to move her hands or legs and had been surviving on mashed food. She was allegedly completely reliant on the Bombay KEM Hospital and had little chance of getting better.
Journalist and activist Pinki Virani then filed an appeal under Article 32 of the constitution, claiming that there was little chance of her surviving and recovering. In order for Aruna to pass away peacefully, the petition begs the respondent to stop feeding her.
The Supreme Court concluded that euthanasia is prohibited in India and that the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution does not include the right to death. The concept of passive euthanasia, in which a person’s life-sustaining medical care may be withheld or abandoned under certain conditions, was nonetheless acknowledged by the court.
A court order and the approval of a medical board were requirements set forth by the court for passive euthanasia situations. The court also recognized the need for advance directives, which would allow individuals to specify their preferences for end-of-life care in the event that they were rendered incapacitated and unable to communicate.
The Aruna Shanbaug case has caused a lot of debate and discussion about euthanasia and end-of-life care in India. Euthanasia was not made legal by this law, but it did explain the circumstances under which it would be permissible and it established protections to protect both patient rights and the interests of medical professionals.
Conclusion
India is becoming a more advanced society as a result of the development of passive euthanasia, but there are still concerns about how this practice might be abused. For example, what if the poor use this technique to avoid paying for expensive medication? The outcome of this debate is still up in the air, so there are many other factors to consider.
For more information visit www.fastracklegalsolutions.com
