Skip to main content

The legal status of the right to die

The legal status of the right to die

The legal position of the right to die is a complicated issue.

The right to life is recognised in Part III, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as one of the fundamental and natural rights of every human being. The right to life protects an individual from being deprived of his or her life or liberty until and until the legal process has been followed. It is the state's responsibility to ensure that every individual has a good quality of life and a dignified life. The judiciary has interpreted this right in a complex manner and has added new rights to the list of rights that fall under its jurisdiction. Before the Common Cause decision, the right to die was not deemed a basic right; nevertheless, the court determined that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right following the decision.

In the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018)

As a result of the Writ Petition of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India, which was heard on March 9, 2018, the Supreme Court of India recognised the right to die with dignity as a basic right protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In addition, the Advanced Medical Directives (Living Will) and the Medical Attorney Authorization have been granted effect in order to facilitate the exercise of this privilege. The long-awaited demand for the legalisation of passive euthanasia has been met with enthusiasm by the Indian legal system.

P. Rathinam vs. Union of India is a civil lawsuit filed in India.

It was extensively discussed before the Supreme Court in P. Rathinam vs. Union of India, which dealt with the constitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 Act (XLV) of 1860, and whether the right to die was a part of the guarantee of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. Specifically, the challenge raised under this Writ Petition dealt with the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code (1860), with the contention that the section was in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The strategy to passive euthanasia is described in detail.

The Supreme Court of India addressed the question of euthanasia for the first time in the case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India and Others, in which the court addressed the matter for the first time. During her time as a nurse at the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, Aruna Shanbaug sustained catastrophic injuries that resulted in her being placed in a permanent vegetative condition. She had been under the care of the hospital staff for 36 years, and there had been no noticeable progress.

Following the petitioner's death, Aruna's next friend filed a writ petition asking the court to order the petitioner's next friend to cease feeding Aruna and allow her to die peacefully. The two-judge bench relied on the case of Airedale N.H.S Trust vs. Bland as well as other foreign jurisprudence in reaching the conclusion that passive euthanasia might be used for severely ill patients or patients in a permanent vegetative state if certain safeguards were followed.


Despite the fact that the patient was conscious and capable of giving consent in the instant case, the court ruled that the patient's consent (or at the very least, the view of the nearest friend) was required. Having obtained the necessary consents and opinions, the matter would be referred to the appropriate High Court, where a Division Bench would be required to appoint a board of three medically qualified individuals. The doctors will then conduct a thorough examination of the patient. Furthermore, the court ruled that these principles must be observed until relevant law on the subject is passed by the Parliament of the country.

In this case, the two-judge panel further noted that the legal position around the world is that active euthanasia is prohibited unless there is legislation that enables it, whereas passive euthanasia is legal even in the absence of legislation so long as specific requirements and safeguards are followed. Passive euthanasia has been allowed in the vast majority of countries, either by legislation or judicial interpretation, but there is still debate about whether active euthanasia should be awarded legal status. In the case of Aruna Shanbaug, the court ruled that passive euthanasia would be permitted when the patient is clinically dead.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
1 comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more