Skip to main content

LEGALITY OF PASSIVE EUTHANASIA IN INDIA

 


               LEGALITY OF PASSIVE EUTHANASIA IN INDIA


INTRODUCTION

Euthanasia means when a terminally ill patient wants to end their life. Euthanasia is of two type active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is when you let a patient to die, a patient who is on complete life support or in vegetative state and cannot live without medical treatment, so you remove the medical support and let the person to die under this type of euthanasia. Wherein active euthanasia you actively end the life of a terminally ill patient. In India active euthanasia is not yet legal.

LEGALITY THROUGH CASE LAWS

In Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1994), by a five judged bench held that both suicide and euthanasia were unlawful. And also held that right to life does not includes right to die, it overrules the judgement given in P. Rathinam vs. Union of India which struck down section 309 of IPC(attempt to suicide) as unconstitutional. Also in the case of Gian kaur case it was made clear by the court that Article 21 of the Indian constitution only says about right to life and personal dignity and does not includes right to die.

Later in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court in March 2011 held that under exceptional circumstances by the order of court passive euthanasia can be given. The fact of the case was Aruna shanbaug who was a nurse in the King Edwards Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, in 1973 she was assaulted by a ward boy (Sohanlal Bhartha Valmiki), of the same hospital while changing her clothes in the hospital basement. Valmiki strangulated Arunas neck with a dog chain and because of the act she has been in vegetative state from 1973 for 42 years and on her behave a social activist Pinki Virani filed a writ petition challenging that the right to life of Aruna is violated. But the judgement in the Shanbaugs case it only admitted passive euthanasia only the order of the court (only legalized passive euthanasia in special circumstances).

In the case of common cause & another vs. Union of India & another, in march 9th 2018, the supreme court held that right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution also includes right to die, the court upheld right to die as a fundamental right.  The court also held a living will (it is a document that a person writes in his normal state of mind) valid. in earlier in the case of shanbaug case also if you need passive euthanasia you should apply for that but now, through living will you can write  for yourself for passive euthanasia and decide for yourself, it is now absolutely in your hands. The issues discussed in the common cause case was:

1) Whether Article 21 of the constitution, that is, right to life and personal liberty includes right to die also?

2) Whether passive euthanasia should be permitted on the living will of the patient?

3) Whether there is a difference between active and passive euthanasia?

4) Whether an individual has any right to refuse medical treatment including withdrawal from life saving devices?

CONCLUSION

Now in India passive euthanasia is valid. The concept of passive euthanasia is a controversial subject, because of the religious aspect and also in terms of the consent of the party. The religious group  believes life as divine and also says that only god have the right to take the life , it is right but the value of the person to live in dignity is curtailed by living in as a vegetative state. The consent of the required party is another issue, he is living in vegetative stage and he cannot give consent but no one like to live in vegetative state clears that part. The judgement in common cause case by five judged bench headed by former CJI Dipak misra in 2018 gives as a landmark judgement and made passive euthanasia as legal in India.


By,

Asha Sebastian.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree