Why in news?
The Supreme Court of India directed doctors at a Noida hospital to constitute a medical board to assess whether passive euthanasia should be granted to a 31‑year‑old man who has been in a vegetative state since an accident over a decade ago. The case has renewed debate on end‑of‑life decisions and the legal framework surrounding them.
Background
The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words eu (good) and thanatos (death), meaning “good death.” It refers to the act of hastening death to relieve unbearable suffering. Euthanasia can be active — directly administering a lethal substance — or passive — withholding or withdrawing life‑sustaining treatment.
Types of euthanasia
- Active voluntary: At the patient’s request, a doctor deliberately ends life through lethal medication. This is illegal in most countries.
- Active non‑voluntary or involuntary: Life is ended without explicit consent; widely considered unethical and criminal.
- Passive euthanasia: Life‑support measures such as ventilation or feeding tubes are withheld or withdrawn, allowing nature to take its course. This is generally more accepted.
Legal status in India
- Passive euthanasia recognised: In 2018 the Supreme Court, in Common Cause vs Union of India, ruled that terminally ill patients have the right to refuse life‑prolonging treatment and recognised a “living will” allowing individuals to state their wishes in advance. The Court held that the right to die with dignity is part of Article 21 (Right to Life).
- Simplified procedures: In 2023 the Court relaxed procedural requirements. A living will must now be signed before two witnesses and attested by a notary or gazetted officer, rather than needing approval from a magistrate. This change aims to make end‑of‑life directives more accessible.
- Active euthanasia remains illegal: Any deliberate act to end a life constitutes homicide under Indian law.
Why the current case matters
- Medical examination: The Supreme Court has directed a primary medical board to evaluate the patient’s condition and make recommendations. Further judicial approval is required before life support can be withdrawn.
- Ethical debate: The case highlights the tension between preserving life and respecting an individual’s dignity and autonomy. It may prompt further refinement of guidelines for implementing living wills and passive euthanasia.
Source: TELE