By Farhat Afreen


The term Euthanasia comes from the liaison between two Ancient Greek words: 'Eu' signifies 'good', and 'Thanatos' signifies 'passing' or ‘death’, so Euthanasia implies great demise. It is a demonstration or practice of finishing the existence of an individual experiencing a terminal sickness or in a hopeless condition by infusion or by suspending additional normal clinical therapy to free him of grievous torment from a terminal ailment. Euthanasia is characterized as an intentional killing by a demonstration or oversight of an individual whose life is believed isn't to merit living. It is otherwise called 'Mercy Killing' which is an act where the person who, is in an irremediable condition or gets no opportunities of endurance as he is experiencing difficult life, takes his own life or permits it in an easy way. It is a delicate, simple, and easy demise. It infers the obtaining of a person's demise, to keep away from or end torment or endurance towards the pain and suffering, particularly of the people experiencing serious and hazardous health and physical issues. The Oxford Dictionary reference characterizes the word as the effortless killing of an individual who has a hopeless illness or who is in an irreversible state of coma.

In brief, euthanasia means putting a person to painless death in case of incurable diseases or when their life remains without purpose and hopeless as a result of mental or physical disability. The basic idea of euthanasia is to bring about the death of a terminally ill patient or a disabled patient. It is resorted to so that the last days of a patient who has been suffering from such an illness which is terminal or which has disabled him can peacefully end up his life and which can also prove to be less painful for him. Thus, the basic intention behind euthanasia is to ensure a less painful death to a person who, in any case, is going to die after a long period of suffering. Euthanasia is practiced so that a person can live as well as die with dignity.

“The right to life includes living a life with dignity. But where is dignity in so much pain?”


To comprehend the intricacy of the idea of euthanasia, one should know the grouping of euthanasia and the terms identified with it.

Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) wherein the specialist purposely gives medical help to a person to take their life, who is probably going to encounter persistent and intolerable torment and torment. The doctor accommodates a total investigation of the medical condition and decides the most painless and viable technique for kicking the bucket.

Voluntary (Intentional) Euthanasia is when the individual wishes through a conscious choice of finishing their assistance with the assistance of another. It requires full consent and awareness of the idea and cycle.

In Non-Voluntary Euthanasia, while the choice of taking a person's life is taken by another, similar to a relative or your accomplice. This happens when the individual is in a condition of permanent unconsciousness and incapacitated past treatment.

Active Euthanasia implies where the specialist can straightforwardly take a person's life. Different names given to this cycle are, 'Positive Euthanasia' or 'Aggressive Euthanasia'. The specialist may straightforwardly intercede and endorse a painless technique to take a person's life. The fundamental component under this remaining part is the consent of the person whose sufferings are irremediable and unending. This is a faster technique for ‘kicking the bucket’ through a deadly and high portion of medication or by infusing the lethal medication into the patient.


Euthanasia was initially legalized in The Netherlands through the approval of the 'Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide' (Review Procedures) Act, 2002. The enactment decriminalized voluntary euthanasia and made the specialist non-responsible for the termination of the life of a person at the request of the actual individual. It is critical to take note that 2% of all the deaths recorded happen because of Euthanasia.

Belgium followed The Netherlands and legalized Euthanasia in 2002. Before that, it held an age restriction regarding who can turn to Euthanasia. Notwithstanding, in 2014, the Parliament abjured the boycott and conceded the choice of Euthanasia to terminally-ill kids also. Switzerland has legalized Assisted Suicide for obliging reasons considering Article 115. The Article even hypothesizes the non-association of a doctor for the execution of the equivalent. Switzerland is even known to be the location of 'Death Tourism" as individuals make a trip from different nations to Switzerland for Assisted Suicide. Nonetheless, the Swiss law doesn't validate the practice of Euthanasia as it considers that however the person's life ends, be it with consent or otherwise, the practice is still severe and is in many ways, illegal in nature as prescribed by Article 114. In the interim, Luxembourg has legalized Euthanasia since 2008. Indeed, Canada additionally legalized Euthanasia with Assisted Suicide in 2016 with the approval of the Medical Assistance in Dying Act because of the Carter V Canada case. New Zealand has likewise legalized Euthanasia with the enactment of the 'End of Life Choice Act, 2019'.

On 18th March 2021, the Parliament of Spain passed a law legalizing Euthanasia for people confronting terminal illness or experiencing grave injuries. It permits them to settle on a choice in regards to the end of their torment. Through this, Spain turned into the Sixth country to decriminalize Euthanasia.

In 2009, South Korea validated the "Right to Die" seeing the request for a lady who was minding dead and requested the evacuation of a life-supporting framework. Even in The United States, Active Euthanasia is illegal in the whole country, while Passive Assisted Suicide is lawful with strict and specific provisions in Washington, Oregon, and numerous different states. Be that as it may, in numerous nations the practice of Euthanasia is illegal. The United Kingdom has strictly restricted Euthanasia. Under The Suicide Act 1961, it considers Euthanasia as a criminal offense with a discipline of as long as 14 years in lieu of killing or murdering the other individual in any event, when requested to do as such.


The right to life is an old discussion. At the point when the Supreme Court heard the test to the burden of Emergency, it dismissed the contention that in India, the right to life accessible to a resident stream from Article 21 of the Constitution, and that if such an article were to be erased or suspended, the resident would reserve no privilege to his life under the law.

As expressed in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which holds a spot in the essential thing rights, "No individual will be denied of his life or individual freedom besides as indicated by the system set up by law." The state and its residents need to assume liability for the right to clean the climate since we live in this climate.

The right to life was made more consecrated and, throughout the long term, has been viewed as an essential element of the Constitution, in this way making it both key and permanent.

The meaning of this is that on the off chance that one gives up the right, one can do so just as per the method set up by law. Forcing death via the death penalty is an illustration of the right to life being ended as per the method set up by law. To end life, even one's own life, were it to be managed without the authority of law, would add up to an unlawful act. In specific cases, it might even be a criminal act. In fact, an endeavor to carry out suicide is wrongdoing under the IPC.


Article 21 of the Constitution of India gives this right to each individual. Before long sufficient individuals of the state started to address, "regardless of whether the right to life additionally involves the option to pass on?". This began a monstrous discussion and consultations on the idea and its relevance in the Indian setting. The two cases, M.S. Dubal v. Province of Maharashtra (1986) and Chenna Jagadeeswar v. Province of AP (1987), managed the positive and negative aspects of the rights given to individuals and the violative idea of specific articles, separately. Both the cases contradict each other on the "Right of Life incorporates Right to Die" subject.

On account of M.S. Dubal v State of Maharashtra (1986), the contention occurred on the negative and positive aspects of the rights that were given to individuals. The court ruled that the Right to Life under Article 21 likewise contains the Right not to live.

The Court stated that "the individuals who make the suicide attempt by virtue of the mental disorders require psychiatric treatment and not confinement in the prison cells where their condition will undoubtedly deteriorate prompting further mental disorders. Those who make a suicide attempt because of intense physical ailments, incurable infections, torment or decrepit physical state actuated by advanced age or disablement, need nursing homes and not prisons to keep them from making the attempts once more."

While in the last case, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh contradicted this and set up the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalized the offense of suicide, which means ending one's own life. This discussion was facilitated on account of P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), which gave the decision for the movement and legalized assisted suicide.

Soon in the way breaking judgment on account of Aruna Shaunbaug v. Union of India (2011), the Supreme Court with its 5 judge-bench commented that the relevance of the idea of euthanasia and the right to life can be deciphered as the right to a life of dignity. This much-anticipated judgment which in itself was a hard fight helped push the awareness on this point and the discussion for the legalization of passive euthanasia subsequently went into our society, yet with the exception of it being practiced distinctly on terminally ill patients and through the evacuation of medical life support.

In 2017, India amended the Mental Healthcare Act, repealing the past act and de-criminalizing the "attempt to suicide" section. Section 115 of the act states:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 309 of the IPC, any individual who attempts to end it all will be ventured to have severe pressure and will not be attempted and rebuffed under this Code.

The public authority is compelled by a solemn obligation to give care, treatment, and restoration to such an individual to lessen the danger of a repeat of the attempt to end it all."

For a country like India, it is a slippery slope to step on, as this practice might be promoted by the individuals who are ruined or vulnerable. It might turn into a trigger in the wrong hands to request and mislead an individual's will and consent for the sake of "living will" or "PAS" or even "non-voluntary euthanasia".


Euthanasia is a sensitive issue that should be regulated in a precise and specified way. The legitimization of Euthanasia in numerous nations allows an individual the Right to Die when confronted with a perpetual state. Nonetheless, alongside this right, calls the significance of Right to Life, since life is a characteristic interaction and individuals are in need of the freedom to interfere with the proper inference. It tends to be convincingly drawn that euthanasia places for its ambit, the unmistakable highlights of ‘Right to Die’ and ‘Right to Life’.

The spotlight stays on the permitting of active euthanasia, regardless of whether the endorsement to this gives equity to individuals enduring or it turns into the reason for the sufferings of many on a long haul. It questions the principles and scales which characterize and measure people's life and whether such life can be put to an end on the person's assent.

As the practice not just envelops the physical condition of an individual but in addition the emotional and mental aspects, there should be a more noteworthy feeling of comprehension before permitting active euthanasia or 'living will'.

In addition, it is thought to be medically untrustworthy and conflicts with the ideas of nursing, recuperating, and doctoring vows that medical officials embrace. It is the degree of mental consciousness that decides if the individual gets consent for passive killing. Consequently, such a choice is undeniably more dangerous and complex when the individual is mentally ready.

The fundamental right of this is the assent and decision of the individual. The skirmish of euthanasia as a lawful remedy is intense and complex. It needs cautious assessment of the status quo of India, the attitude of individuals, and the necessary acknowledgment. By any means, if it were to be legitimized in India, there would be a necessity of severe and organized laws that would ensure the assent and will of the individual and strategies to resuscitate the individual, expectations of the guardians and clinical authorities, legitimate approaches to guarantee that no maltreatment of the law happens and the audit of conditions under which the euthanasia is to be permitted.

41 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All