Skip to main content

Right to Die

                     Right to Die

Every country provides its people various kinds and number of rights to ensure their welfare. In India also there are rights which its government has given to people like:

  1. Article 14- Right to Equality before law

  2. Article 15- Prohibition against discrimination

  3. Article 16- Equality of opportunity in public employment

  4. Article 17- Abolition of Untouchability

  5. Article 18- Abolition of Titles

  6. Article 19- Right to freedom

  7. Article 20- Protection in respect of conviction for offences

  8. Article 21- Right to life and Personal Liberty

  9. Article 22- Protection against arrest and detention

Like that there are more number of rights which a country grants to its citizens. But apart from these particular rights, the biggest right which can also be said as a whole sum of all the rights is the Article 21 which is a Right to life and Personal Liberty. If we talk about this right, it covers everything. Everything is covered specifically but if anything is left behind then Article 21 covers that. Basically, this right means that ‘Bo person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law’. In this many things are covered such as:

  1. Right to live with human dignity.

  2. Right to livelihood.

  3. Right to privacy.

  4. Right to shelter.

  5. Right to health.

  6. Right to decent environment including pollution free water and air and protection against hazardous industries.

  7. Right to free legal aid.

  8. Right to information.

There are many more like this which automatically comes under this when we talk about living a life with dignity. But now one new debate has emerged that whether the right to die comes under the right to life and personal liberty or not. It is very important to consider this because a lot of people say that if we have a right to life with dignity we should be having right to die with dignity. In this regard, it is significant to consider the stand of various countries.

In Australia, euthanasia is completely legal as it is considered a health issue. During 1996-97 it fell under the Terminally Ill Act, 1995 but now it comes under the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act, 2017. In 2002, Belgian government also legalized euthanasia. Likewise, Canada, Colombia, Germany, Netherlands and many more countries have legalized voluntary euthanasia.

In case of India, the Supreme Court has legalized passive euthanasia under strict conditions. Also, the consent of the patient is needed and if not patient then the relatives of the patient’s consent is required. Before 2018, there was no such provision but in 2018 case related to the Aruna Shanbaug this provision came into law.

Therefore, it was a very good step in this regard because we can imagine a condition where the individual is extremely ill. Whatever the medication is given, it is good for nothing and further the patient is getting difficulties only. The pain which he or she is getting is of extreme nature which no one would approve of in his or her senses. So, it is better to die because living will cause pain only. Even, the patient wants this only.
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