Syllabus: GS2/Polity; Health
Context
- The Supreme Court practically applied the principles of passive euthanasia for the first time by permitting the withdrawal of clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) to 32-year-old Harish Rana.
About
- The court laid down that:
- withdrawal of life support must be in the “best interests” of the patient and guiding factors include whether life support provided to the patient qualify as medical treatment;
- whether medicines have any therapeutic benefit, but only works to prolong life, pain and suffering for the patient;
- and whether it would be in the best interest of the patient to artificially prolong life.
- The court said the patient must be looked after in a sensitive manner with concerns for his or her dignity given foremost importance.
- The judgment decisively draws the boundaries on when to allow natural death to take over.
- The bench noted that there is no comprehensive legislation addressing end-of-life care in the country and urged the Centre to enact a law in this regard.
Euthanasia
- Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to eliminate pain or suffering
- Ethicists differentiate between active and passive euthanasia.
- Passive euthanasia entails the deliberate decision to withhold or withdraw medical interventions, like life support, with the aim of permitting a person’s natural death.
- Active Euthanasia is the intentional act of killing a terminally ill patient on voluntary request, by the direct intervention of a doctor for the purpose of the good of the patient. It is illegal in India.
Legal Stance
- The Supreme Court had in 2018 legalised passive euthanasia, contingent upon the person having a “living will”.
- SC held that the ‘right to die with dignity’ forms a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- A living will is a written document that specifies the actions to be taken if the person is unable to make their own medical decisions in the future.
Arguments in Favour of Assisted Dying
- Autonomy and Choice: Individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own lives, including the choice to end it to avoid prolonged suffering.
- Relief from Suffering: Assisted dying provides a compassionate option for those with terminal illnesses or unbearable pain, allowing them to die with dignity.
- Respect for Individual Rights: People should have control over their bodies and lives, including the decision to end their life in a humane and controlled manner.
Arguments Against Assisted Dying
- Moral and Ethical Concerns: Many believe that taking a life, even at the person’s request, is morally wrong and goes against the sanctity of life.
- Risk of Abuse: Vulnerable individuals, such as those with mental health issues or pressure from family, may be coerced into choosing assisted dying.
- Medical Ethics: Healthcare professionals are traditionally bound to preserve life, and assisted dying may conflict with the fundamental role of doctors in healing and care.
- Alternative Solutions: There are arguments that palliative care and pain management can provide relief, making assisted dying unnecessary.
Way Ahead
- Palliative Care Expansion: Improving access to high-quality palliative care to address suffering and reduce the demand for assisted dying.
- Public Debate: Ongoing discussions about the moral, legal, and ethical implications of assisted dying, can be considered while framing the guidelines.
- International Perspective: Countries may look to those with legal assisted dying frameworks (e.g., the Netherlands, Canada) for guidance on effective regulation and safeguards.
- Mental Health Support: Providing psychological evaluations to prevent coercion or impulsive decisions and ensure informed consent is given.
Source: DD
