Right to live right to die with dignity special context to euthanasia

A
Report
Submitted to the RNBGU for fulfilment of the Bachelor of Business
Administration.
Submitted to: Submitted by:
RNB Global University Kanak Binayakiya
Bikaner Kajal Soni
Pradhumn Soni
School of Commerce & Management
RNB Global University, Bikaner
A project on Right to live and Right to
die in special context to Euthanasia.

i | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDMENT
We take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to the following personalities without whose help
and guidance the successful completion of my project work would have been remained a dream.
I would like to take the pleasure of this opportunity to express my heart full gratitude to my guide Assistant
professor Vasudha Vyas (former, faculty member, RNB) who took personal interest and gave valuable
suggestions throughout project work and completion of the project.
The importance of the moral support and good wishes of my parents and friends Is external and I am very
much Indebted to them.
Thank to Advocate Lal Ji Sethia Who took personal interest and help us through out this project.
Signature of Student’s
1.
2.
3.
-----------------------------
(Kanak Binayakiya)
(Kajal Soni)
(Pradhumn Soni)

ii | P a g e
Certificate Of Originality
This Is to certify that the project titled “Right to live rigt to die with dignity apectial conteat to Euthanasia” Is
an original work of the Student and Is being submitted in partial fulfilment for the award of the “BBA (Finance
& Accounts)” of RNB Global University. This report has not been submitted earlier either to this University
or to any other University/Institution for the fulfilment of the course of study.
Signature of Student’s
1.
2.
3.
-----------------------------
(Kanak Binayakiya)
(Kajal Soni)
(Pradhumn Soni)

iii | P a g e
Executive summary
The term euthanasia comes from the Greece words “eu ”and “thanatos ”which means “good death”2 or
“easy death ”.It is also known as Mercy Killing. Euthanasia is the intentional premature termination of
According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edition) euthanasia means the act or practice of killing or bringing
about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or condition, esp. a painful one, for
reasons of mercy. Encyclopedia of ‘Crime and Justice’, explains euthanasia as an act of death which will
provide a relief from a distressing or intolerable condition of living.
Euthanasia or mercy killing is the practice of killing a person for giving relief from incurable pain or suffering
or allowing or causing painless death when life has become meaningless and disagreeable3.In the modern
context euthanasia is limited to the killing of patients by doctors at the request of the patient in order to free
him of excruciating pain or from terminal illness

iv | P a g e
1. Introduction to research...
‘Research’, in simple terms, can be defined as ‘systematic investigation towards increasing the amount of
human knowledge’ and as a ‘process’ of identifying and investigating a ‘fact’ or a ‘problem’ with a view to
acquiring an insight into it or finding an apt solution therefore. An approach becomes systematic when a
researcher follows certain scientific methods.
In this context, legal research may be defined as ‘systematic’ discovery of law on a point and making
advancement in the science of law. However, the finding of law is not so easy. It involves a detailed study
and research of legal materials, statutory, subsidiary and judicial pronouncements. For making advancement
in the science of law, one needs to go into the ‘underlying principles or reasons of the law’. These activities
warrant a methodical approach. A scientific method needs to be applied by the researcher. So, writing is just
an instrument of communicating the researcher's findings and conclusions to the audience or readers, or
consumers of the research product.
Writing a critical work is not an easy job as it requires continuation. It is the integral part of the research
process. It should start soon after the commencement of the research project and continue to and beyond
its completion. It begins as soon as you start thinking about and reading around your research. Finally, the
researcher must prepare the report of what has been done by him/her. The topic of my dissertation is ‘An
analytical study of Euthanasia in India with reference to Aruna shanbaug’s case’. The word ‘Euthanasia’ is a
derivative from the Greek words ‘eu’ and ‘thanotos’ which literally mean “good death”. It is otherwise
described as mercy killing. The death of a terminally ill patient is accelerated through active or passive means
to relieve such patient of pain or suffering. It appears that the word was used in the 17th Century by Francis
Bacon to refer to an easy, painless and happy death for which it was the physician’s duty and responsibility
to alleviate the physical suffering of the body of the patient. The House of Lords Select Committee on
‘Medical Ethics’ in England defined Euthanasia as “a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express
intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering”. The European Association of Palliative Care (EPAC)
Ethics Task Force, in a discussion on Euthanasia in 2003, clarified that “medicalized killing of a person without
the person’s consent, whether non-voluntary (where the person in unable to consent) or involuntary (against
the person’s will) is not euthanasia: it is a murder. Hence, euthanasia can be only voluntary”. We are here
concerned with analytical study of euthanasia in India. The study is highlighted with reference to the decision
of the Supreme Court of India in Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India. Active euthanasia involves
putting down a patient by injecting the him with a lethal substance e.g. Sodium Pentothal which causes the
patient to go in deep sleep in a few seconds and the person dies painlessly in sleep. Thus, it amounts to killing

v | P a g e
a person by a positive act in order to end suffering of a person in a state of terminal illness. It is a crime all
over the world (irrespective of the will of the patient) except where permitted by legislation, as observed
earlier by the Supreme Court. In India too, active euthanasia is illegal and a crime under Section 302 or 304
of the IPC. Physician assisted suicide is a crime under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide).
Passive euthanasia, otherwise known as ‘negative euthanasia’, however, stands on a different footing. It
involves withholding of medical treatment or withholding life support system for continuance of life e.g.,
withholding of antibiotic where by 1Ibid at 481 doing so, the patient is likely to die or removing the heart–
lung machine from a patient in coma. Passive euthanasia is legal even without legislation provided certain
conditions and safeguards are maintained (vide para 39 of SCC in Aruna’s case). The core point of distinction
between active and passive euthanasia as noted by the Supreme Court is that in active euthanasia, something
is done to end the patient’s life while in passive euthanasia, something is not done that would have preserved
the patient’s life. To quote the words of learned Judge in Aruna’s case, about passive euthanasia, “the
doctors are not actively bringing about death of anyone; they are simply not saving him”.
Passive euthanasia is further classified as voluntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is where the
consent is taken from the patient. In non-voluntary euthanasia, the consent is unavailable. When a person
ends his life by his own act it is called “suicide” but to end life of a person by others though on the request
of the deceased is called “euthanasia” or “mercy killing”. We can ask the question about the attitude towards
the annihilation of life viewed by different religions like Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Sikh. Though the
purpose of suicide and euthanasia is same i.e., self-destruction but there is a clear difference between the
two. The discussion will include the legal position in India i.e., the foundation document- the Constitution of
India, the Indian Penal Code and other laws in vogue, so also the position of different countries of the world.
Although the Supreme Court has already given its decision on this point but still we can touch all the features
of the issue which we need to analyze carefully.

vi | P a g e
2. Hypothesis of the research.
‘Hypothesis’ is derived from two words: ‘hypo’ means ‘under’, and ‘thesis’ means an ‘idea’ or ‘thought’.
Hence, hypothesis means ‘idea’ underlying a statement or proposition.
Though the Indian Constitution grants equality to everyone, either ill or healthy but in the context of
Euthanasia it does not permit to avail voluntary death.
Indian law is based on ‘Ahinsa’. Voluntary death is taken as an attempt to suicide leading to criminal offence
and has been subjected to criticism, vilification and condemnation. Passive euthanasia, which is allowed in
many countries, has legal recognition in India.
When someone unconscious or of unsound mind and is a terminally sick patient passive euthanasia can be
lawfully granted without his consent.

vii | P a g e
3. Objectives and aims of the research
Research is undertaken with a view to arrive at a statement of generality. Generalizations drawn from the
study have certain effects for the established corpus of knowledge. It may add credence to the existing
accepted theory or bring certain amendments or modifications in the accepted body of knowledge.
The discovery of truth is the foremost object of any research. The researcher acquires knowledge from the
research made or prepared by him/her. It is source of acquiring knowledge or establishing the truth about a
particular thing or object. One of the objectives of research is to gain familiarity with a phenomenon or to
achieve new insights into it.
Thus the objectives of the present research are as follows;
The main goal of the research is to know about the conventions about euthanasia
• To study the legislation in some countries relating to euthanasia
• To study and understand the meaning of brain death.
• To study and analyze Euthanasia in the intentional premature termination of another person’s
life either by direct intervention (active euthanasia) or by withholding
Life-prolonging measures and resources (passive euthanasia), either at the express or implied request of that
person (voluntary euthanasia), or in the absence of such approval (non-voluntary euthanasia).
To study the principle of Causing the death of a person, who is in a permanent vegetative state with no
chance of recovery, by withdrawing artificial life-support is only an ‘omission (of support to life) and not an
act of killing.’

viii | P a g e
4. Importance of the research.
This research will be important from the following point of view.
A) Social Welfare: -
Social welfare can be achieved through socio-legal research. This research being of socio-legal significance
helps us
To judge the magnitude of social evils of euthanasia.
B) Comparative Study: -
As we know that legislature considers the law prevailing in other countries at the time of law making. This
research is
Important to find out what the law is in other countries.
C) Law Reforms: -
There are various tools for law reforms. Research is an important tool for any project of law reform. So this
research
May be important from the point of view of law reforms in relation to Euthanasia.
D) Effectiveness: -
This research will be helpful in laying down effective policies and principles to make the law on euthanasia
an effective instrument in protecting miss organization of in the machinery engaged.

ix | P a g e
5. Selection of research with reason’s: -
1) The problems are worth studying and hence need a focused study.
2) This research problem has social and legal significance.
3) The researcher has interest and intellectual curiosity in the topic.
4) This research is of practical importance.
5) This research problem requires solution on complex issues involved.
6) Availability of resources, literatures, articles helps me in selecting this research problem.
7) This research problem may furnish a basis for future study.
8) This research problem may meet out social needs of the concerned parties.

x | P a g e
6. Scope of research
Euthanasia has its pros and cons. It is discussed country wide. The awareness required for the subject must
be extensive and needs studious approach. Unfortunately, it is minimal on national front; therefore, the
scope of the research problem is limited to Indian scenario. The judiciary is the most functional body on the
subject. Supreme Court has acknowledged the distinction between the “act of killing” and “not saving one’s
life”. Accordingly, the court also emphasized two distinct types of Euthanasia: Active Euthanasia and Passive
Euthanasia.
This research also extends to…
A) The constitutional provisions.
B) The Indian penal code
C) International perspectives of euthanasia.
The research being a socio legal research is also useful in changing society’s view. Many complex issues can
be addressed through this. The needs of every party involved can be recognized.

xi | P a g e
7. Research methodology
For this research problem researcher has selected doctrinal research methodology as many things can only
be studied in empirical conditions. Being a social issue, the research has got the status of socio legal research.
Hence, the researcher thinks doctrinal method will hold the research in proper manner. Researcher has
studied the relevant literature available in books, case laws and Internet. Research Methodology is a
systematized investigation to gain new knowledge about the phenomena or problems. But in its wider
séance ‘Methodology’ includes the philosophy and practice of the whole research process. Euthanasia with
reference to Aruna Shanbaug’s case provides standards. The researcher has used the following sources for
the research.
1. All India Reporters,
2. Law Journals,
3. Articles, Essays, and Case Laws on the research
problems, and
4. News Papers.

i | P a g e
1. Introduction to research...
‘Research’, in simple terms, can be defined as ‘systematic investigation towards increasing the amount of
human knowledge’ and as a ‘process’ of identifying and investigating a ‘fact’ or a ‘problem’ with a view to
acquiring an insight into it or finding an apt solution therefore. An approach becomes systematic when a
researcher follows certain scientific methods.
In this context, legal research may be defined as ‘systematic’ discovery of law on a point and making
advancement in the science of law. However, the finding of law is not so easy. It involves a detailed study
and research of legal materials, statutory, subsidiary and judicial pronouncements. For making advancement
in the science of law, one needs to go into the ‘underlying principles or reasons of the law’. These activities
warrant a methodical approach. A scientific method needs to be applied by the researcher. So, writing is just
an instrument of communicating the researcher's findings and conclusions to the audience or readers, or
consumers of the research product.
Writing a critical work is not an easy job as it requires continuation. It is the integral part of the research
process. It should start soon after the commencement of the research project and continue to and beyond
its completion. It begins as soon as you start thinking about and reading around your research. Finally, the
researcher must prepare the report of what has been done by him/her. The topic of my dissertation is ‘An
analytical study of Euthanasia in India with reference to Aruna shanbaug’s case’. The word ‘Euthanasia’ is a
derivative from the Greek words ‘eu’ and ‘thanotos’ which literally mean “good death”. It is otherwise
described as mercy killing. The death of a terminally ill patient is accelerated through active or passive means
to relieve such patient of pain or suffering. It appears that the word was used in the 17th Century by Francis
Bacon to refer to an easy, painless and happy death for which it was the physician’s duty and responsibility
to alleviate the physical suffering of the body of the patient. The House of Lords Select Committee on
‘Medical Ethics’ in England defined Euthanasia as “a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express
intention of ending a life to relieve intractable suffering”. The European Association of Palliative Care (EPAC)
Ethics Task Force, in a discussion on Euthanasia in 2003, clarified that “medicalized killing of a person without
the person’s consent, whether non-voluntary (where the person in unable to consent) or involuntary (against
the person’s will) is not euthanasia: it is a murder. Hence, euthanasia can be only voluntary”. We are here
concerned with analytical study of euthanasia in India. The study is highlighted with reference to the decision
of the Supreme Court of India in Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India. Active euthanasia involves
putting down a patient by injecting the him with a lethal substance e.g. Sodium Pentothal which causes the

ii | P a g e
patient to go in deep sleep in a few seconds and the person dies painlessly in sleep. Thus, it amounts to killing
a person by a positive act in order to end suffering of a person in a state of terminal illness. It is a crime all
over the world (irrespective of the will of the patient) except where permitted by legislation, as observed
earlier by the Supreme Court. In India too, active euthanasia is illegal and a crime under Section 302 or 304
of the IPC. Physician assisted suicide is a crime under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide).
Passive euthanasia, otherwise known as ‘negative euthanasia’, however, stands on a different footing. It
involves withholding of medical treatment or withholding life support system for continuance of life e.g.,
withholding of antibiotic where by 1Ibid at 481 doing so, the patient is likely to die or removing the heart–
lung machine from a patient in coma. Passive euthanasia is legal even without legislation provided certain
conditions and safeguards are maintained (vide para 39 of SCC in Aruna’s case). The core point of distinction
between active and passive euthanasia as noted by the Supreme Court is that in active euthanasia, something
is done to end the patient’s life while in passive euthanasia, something is not done that would have preserved
the patient’s life. To quote the words of learned Judge in Aruna’s case, about passive euthanasia, “the
doctors are not actively bringing about death of anyone; they are simply not saving him”.
Passive euthanasia is further classified as voluntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is where the
consent is taken from the patient. In non-voluntary euthanasia, the consent is unavailable. When a person
ends his life by his own act it is called “suicide” but to end life of a person by others though on the request
of the deceased is called “euthanasia” or “mercy killing”. We can ask the question about the attitude towards
the annihilation of life viewed by different religions like Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Sikh. Though the
purpose of suicide and euthanasia is same i.e., self-destruction but there is a clear difference between the
two. The discussion will include the legal position in India i.e., the foundation document- the Constitution of
India, the Indian Penal Code and other laws in vogue, so also the position of different countries of the world.
Although the Supreme Court has already given its decision on this point but still we can touch all the features
of the issue which we need to analyze carefully.

iii | P a g e
2. Hypothesis of the research.
‘Hypothesis’ is derived from two words: ‘hypo’ means ‘under’, and ‘thesis’ means an ‘idea’ or ‘thought’.
Hence, hypothesis means ‘idea’ underlying a statement or proposition.
Though the Indian Constitution grants equality to everyone, either ill or healthy but in the context of
Euthanasia it does not permit to avail voluntary death.
Indian law is based on ‘Ahinsa’. Voluntary death is taken as an attempt to suicide leading to criminal offence
and has been subjected to criticism, vilification and condemnation. Passive euthanasia, which is allowed in
many countries, has legal recognition in India.
When someone unconscious or of unsound mind and is a terminally sick patient passive euthanasia can be
lawfully granted without his consent.

iv | P a g e
3. Objectives and aims of the research
Research is undertaken with a view to arrive at a statement of generality. Generalizations drawn from the
study have certain effects for the established corpus of knowledge. It may add credence to the existing
accepted theory or bring certain amendments or modifications in the accepted body of knowledge.
The discovery of truth is the foremost object of any research. The researcher acquires knowledge from the
research made or prepared by him/her. It is source of acquiring knowledge or establishing the truth about a
particular thing or object. One of the objectives of research is to gain familiarity with a phenomenon or to
achieve new insights into it.
Thus the objectives of the present research are as follows;
The main goal of the research is to know about the conventions about euthanasia
• To study the legislation in some countries relating to euthanasia
• To study and understand the meaning of brain death.
• To study and analyze Euthanasia in the intentional premature termination of another person’s
life either by direct intervention (active euthanasia) or by withholding
Life-prolonging measures and resources (passive euthanasia), either at the express or implied request of that
person (voluntary euthanasia), or in the absence of such approval (non-voluntary euthanasia).
To study the principle of Causing the death of a person, who is in a permanent vegetative state with no
chance of recovery, by withdrawing artificial life-support is only an ‘omission (of support to life) and not an
act of killing.’

v | P a g e
4. Importance of the research.
This research will be important from the following point of view.
A) Social Welfare: -
Social welfare can be achieved through socio-legal research. This research being of socio-legal significance
helps us
To judge the magnitude of social evils of euthanasia.
B) Comparative Study: -
As we know that legislature considers the law prevailing in other countries at the time of law making. This
research is
Important to find out what the law is in other countries.
C) Law Reforms: -
There are various tools for law reforms. Research is an important tool for any project of law reform. So this
research
May be important from the point of view of law reforms in relation to Euthanasia.
D) Effectiveness: -
This research will be helpful in laying down effective policies and principles to make the law on euthanasia
an effective instrument in protecting miss organization of in the machinery engaged.

vi | P a g e
5. Selection of research with reason’s: -
1) The problems are worth studying and hence need a focused study.
2) This research problem has social and legal significance.
3) The researcher has interest and intellectual curiosity in the topic.
4) This research is of practical importance.
5) This research problem requires solution on complex issues involved.
6) Availability of resources, literatures, articles helps me in selecting this research problem.
7) This research problem may furnish a basis for future study.
8) This research problem may meet out social needs of the concerned parties.

vii | P a g e
6. Scope of research
Euthanasia has its pros and cons. It is discussed country wide. The awareness required for the subject must
be extensive and needs studious approach. Unfortunately, it is minimal on national front; therefore, the
scope of the research problem is limited to Indian scenario. The judiciary is the most functional body on the
subject. Supreme Court has acknowledged the distinction between the “act of killing” and “not saving one’s
life”. Accordingly, the court also emphasized two distinct types of Euthanasia: Active Euthanasia and Passive
Euthanasia.
This research also extends to…
A) The constitutional provisions.
B) The Indian penal code
C) International perspectives of euthanasia.
The research being a socio legal research is also useful in changing society’s view. Many complex issues can
be addressed through this. The needs of every party involved can be recognized.

viii | P a g e
7. Research methodology
For this research problem researcher has selected doctrinal research methodology as many things can only
be studied in empirical conditions. Being a social issue, the research has got the status of socio legal research.
Hence, the researcher thinks doctrinal method will hold the research in proper manner. Researcher has
studied the relevant literature available in books, case laws and Internet. Research Methodology is a
systematized investigation to gain new knowledge about the phenomena or problems. But in its wider
séance ‘Methodology’ includes the philosophy and practice of the whole research process. Euthanasia with
reference to Aruna Shanbaug’s case provides standards. The researcher has used the following sources for
the research.
1. All India Reporters,
2. Law Journals,
3. Articles, Essays, and Case Laws on the research
problems, and
4. News Papers.

1 | P a g e
Contents
Chapter I- Introduction......................................................................................................................................................2
1.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................3
1.2 Meaning of Euthanasia............................................................................................................................................4
1.3 Religious Views on Euthanasia. ...............................................................................................................................4
1.3.1 Buddhism..........................................................................................................................................................4
1.3.2 Christianity........................................................................................................................................................5
1.3.3 Hinduism...........................................................................................................................................................5
1.3.4 Muslim..............................................................................................................................................................5
1.3.5 Jainism ..............................................................................................................................................................5
1.3.6 Shinto................................................................................................................................................................5
1.4 Legal Aspects of Euthanasia in India........................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER II - A comparative analysis of assisted suicide laws...........................................................................................7
2.1 Justification for the comparative analysis...............................................................................................................8
2.2 The northern Territory.............................................................................................................................................8
2.3 The Netherlands ......................................................................................................................................................9
2.4 The United States of America................................................................................................................................12
2.5Conclusion For This chapter. ..................................................................................................................................14
CHAPTER III - Terminology...............................................................................................................................................15
3.Terminology..............................................................................................................................................................16
3.1 Classification of euthanasia and assisted suicide ..............................................................................................16
3.2 Dead or alive......................................................................................................................................................17
3.3 Killing versus letting Die.....................................................................................................................................18
CHAPTER IV – Finding conclusion and suggestion’s ........................................................................................................19
4.1 Findings..................................................................................................................................................................20
4.2 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................21
4.3 Suggestions............................................................................................................................................................22
CHAPTER V – References, Bibliography...........................................................................................................................24
5.1 Bibliography...........................................................................................................................................................25
5.2 References.............................................................................................................................................................26

2 | P a g e
Chapter I- Introduction

3 | P a g e
1.1 Introduction
Euthanasia and its procedure entail complicated issues regarding legal and procedural compliance in
countries across the world. Every adult of sound mind has a right to determine what should be done with
his/her person. It is unlawful to administer treatment on an adult who is conscious and of sound mind,
without his consent. Patients with Permanent Vegetative State (PVS) and no hope of improvement cannot
make decisions about treatment to be given to them. It is ultimately for the Court to decide, as parents
patriae, as to what is in the best interest of the patient. An erroneous decision not to terminate results in
maintenance of the status quo; the possibility of subsequent developments such as advancements in medical
science, the discovery of new evidence regarding the patient’s intent, changes in the law, or simply the
unexpected death of the patient despite the administration of life-sustaining treatment, at least create the
potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected, or its impact mitigated.
Every human being desires to live and enjoy the life till he dies. But sometimes a human being wishes to end
his life in the manner he chooses. To end one’s life in an unnatural way is a sign of abnormality. When a
person ends his life by his own act we call it “suicide” but to end a person’s life by others on the request of
the deceased, is called “euthanasia” or “mercy killing”.
Euthanasia is mainly associated with people with terminal illness or who have become incapacitated and
don’t want to go through the rest of their life suffering. A severely handicapped or terminally ill person
supposed to have the right to choose between life and death. This right of a patient with terminal illness
cannot be equated with an able bodied, sane person’s right. Euthanasia is a controversial issue which
encompasses the morals, values and beliefs of our society.
Euthanasia has been a much-debated subject throughout the world. The debate became increasingly
significant because of the developments. In Netherlands, Belgium, Colombia and Luxembourg euthanasia is
legal. Switzerland, Germany, Japan and some states in the United States of America permit assisted suicide
while in nations like Mexico and Thailand it is illegal. In India passive euthanasia is legal, while debate goes
on about legalizing active euthanasia.
another person’s life either by direct intervention (active euthanasia) or by withholding life-prolonging
measures and resources (passive euthanasia). It is either at the express or implied request of that person
(i.e., voluntary euthanasia), or in the absence of such approval (non-voluntary euthanasia).

4 | P a g e
1.2 Meaning of Euthanasia
The term euthanasia comes from the Greece words “eu ”and “thanatos ”which means “good death”2 or
“easy death ”.It is also known as Mercy Killing. Euthanasia is the intentional premature termination of
According to Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edition) euthanasia means the act or practice of killing or bringing
about the death of a person who suffers from an incurable disease or condition, esp. a painful one, for
reasons of mercy. Encyclopedia of ‘Crime and Justice’, explains euthanasia as an act of death which will
provide a relief from a distressing or intolerable condition of living. Simply euthanasia is the practice of
mercifully ending a person’s life in order to release the person from an incurable disease, intolerable
suffering, misery and pain of the life. Euthanasia can be defined as the administration of drugs with the
explicit intention of ending the patient’s life, at the patient’s request. Euthanasia literally means putting a
person to painless death especially in case of incurable suffering or when life becomes purposeless as a result
of mental or physical handicap3. Euthanasia or mercy killing is the practice of killing a person for giving relief
from incurable pain or suffering or allowing or causing painless death when life has become meaningless and
disagreeable3.In the modern context euthanasia is limited to the killing of patients by doctors at the request
of the patient in order to free him of excruciating pain or from terminal illness. Thus the basic intention
behind euthanasia is to ensure a less painful death to a person who is in any case going to die after a long
period of suffering.
1.3 Religious Views on Euthanasia.
There are various religious views on euthanasia which are diverse and modify according to changing age of
mankind.
1.3.1 Buddhism.
There are mixed views among Buddhists on the issue of euthanasia, most are critical of the procedure.
Compassion is a valued virtue of Buddhist teachings. It is used by some Buddhists as a justification for
euthanasia because the person suffering is relieved of pain. However, it is still immoral “to embark on any
course of action whose aim is to, destroy human life, irrespective of the quality of the individual's motive.
“In Theravada Buddhism a lay person daily recites the simple formula: “I undertake the precept to abstain
from destroying living being.” Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that this opposition to euthanasia also
applies to physician-assisted death and other forms of assisted suicide.

5 | P a g e
1.3.2 Christianity
Catholic teaching condemns euthanasia as a “crime against life” and a “crime against God”. The teaching of
the Catholic Church on euthanasia rests on several core principles of Catholic ethics, including the sanctity
of human life, the dignity of human person, concomitant human rights, due proportionality in casuistic
remedies, the unavoidability of death, and the importance of charity. Protestant denominations vary widely
on their approach to euthanasia and physician assisted death.
1.3.3 Hinduism
There are two Hindu approaches on euthanasia. It is a double edged sword. By helping to end a painful life a
person is performing a good deed and so fulfilling their moral obligations. On the other hand, meddling with
life and death of a third person is not humanly, which is a bad deed. However, the same argument suggests
that keeping a person artificially alive on a life-support machines would also be an appalling thing to do.
Hinduism does not advocate actions leading to death of a person. According to it euthanasia is not an act of
sin, but the myths and issues attached to it make it sound a merciless act, a sin. A Sanyasi or a Sannyasin,
wish to depart the mortal life, are permitted to end his or her life with the hope of reaching Moksha i.e.;
emancipation of the soul.
1.3.4 Muslim
Muslims are against euthanasia. They believe that human life is sacred because it is given by Allah, and that
Allah chooses how long each person will live. Human beings must not interfere in these divine powers. It is
a strict obligation on the part of human beings not to end the precious and sacred life.
1.3.5 Jainism
Mahavira Vardhman explicitly allows a shrive (follower of Jainism) full consent to put an end to his or her life
if the shrive feels that such a stage would lead to moksha. Salvation can be achieved through self-sacrifice.
1.3.6 Shinto
In Japan, the dominant religion is Shinto. 69% of the religious organizations agree with the act of voluntary
passive euthanasia. In Shinto, prolonging the life using artificial means is a disgraceful act and hence against
life. There are mixed views on active euthanasia. 25% Shinto and Buddhist organizations in Japan support
voluntary active euthanasia.

6 | P a g e
1.4 Legal Aspects of Euthanasia in India
The legal position of India cannot and should not be studied in isolation. India has drawn its constitution from
the constitutions of various countries and the courts have time and again referred to various foreign
decisions.
In India, euthanasia is undoubtedly illegal. Since in cases of euthanasia or mercy killing there is an intention
on the part of the doctor to end the life of the patient, such cases would clearly fall under clause first of
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, as in such cases there is a valid consent of the deceased
Exception 5 to the said Section would be attracted and the doctor or the medical professional would be
punishable under Section 304 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. But it is only cases of
voluntary euthanasia (where the patient consents to death) that would attract Exception 5 to Section 300.
Cases of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia would be struck down by proviso one to Section 92 of
the IPC and thus be rendered illegal. The law in India is also very clear on the aspect of assisted suicide. Right
to suicide is not a “right” available in India – it is punishable under the India Penal Code, 1860. Provision of
punishing suicide is contained in sections 305 (Abetment of suicide of child or insane person), 306 (Abetment
of suicide) and 309 (Attempt to commit suicide) of the said Code. Section 309, IPC has been brought under
the scanner with regard to its constitutionality. Right to life is an important right enshrined in Constitution
of India. Article 21 guarantees the right to life in India. It is argued that the right to life under Article 21
includes the right to die. Therefore the mercy killing is the legal right of a person. After the decision of a five-
judge bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab it is well settled that the “right to life”
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the “right to die”. The Court held that Article
21 is a provision guaranteeing “protection of life and personal liberty” and by no stretch of the imagination
can extinction of life be read into it. In existing regime under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 also
incidentally deals with the issue at hand. Under section 20A read with section 33(m) of the said Act, the
Medical Council of India may prescribe the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and a code of
ethics for medical practitioners. Exercising these powers, the Medical Council of India has amended the code
of medical ethics for medical practitioners.
There under the act of euthanasia has been classified as unethical except in cases where the life support
system is used only to continue the cardio-pulmonary actions of the body. In such cases, subject to the
certification by the term of doctors, life support system may be removed. A person attempts suicide in a
depression, and hence he needs help, rather than punishment.

7 | P a g e
CHAPTER II - A
comparative analysis of
assisted suicide laws.

8 | P a g e
2.1 Justification for the comparative analysis
Not many jurisdictions have legalized euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide as many legal systems still
regard it as murder or culpable homicide and therefore, as a criminal offence that is punishable by law. This
chapter is devoted to those jurisdictions that have already taken steps to legalize or currently in the process
of legalizing assisted death. A comparative legal study of different jurisdictions is necessary to establish the
methods of regulation that are applied to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. By comparing different
jurisdictions, one can also ascertain whether a specific type of assisted death is favored, and if so for which
reasons. The reasons and justifications given for legalizing or decriminalizing euthanasia and/or physician-
assisted suicide in the jurisdictions to be discussed, will contribute greatly in answering the question whether
legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is justifiable based on human dignity.
The jurisdictions that will be focused on include the Northern Territory in Australia, the Netherlands,
Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland and the United States of America. Recent developments will also be
discussed by referring to the position in Canada and the United Kingdom. The position about children will
also be discussed in a separate section by referring specifically to the Netherlands and Belgium. The
comparative nature of this chapter will also aid in establishing whether, if South Africa were to legalize a
form of assisted death, both euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide should be considered or just one of
the two.
2.2 The northern Territory.
The Northern Territory in Australia was the first jurisdiction in the world to sanction the practice of
euthanasia. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1996 (NT) was the result of lobbying to end unbearable pain
and to grant self-determination to patients suffering from incurable diseases and to request their medical
practitioner to accelerate their death because of these circumstances. The Rights of the Terminally Ill Act
required that the request made by the patient must be voluntary, the patient’s condition must be hopeless,
proper reflection must be made, and lastly that the death occur in the most humane manner. This Act
legalized both voluntary euthanasia by a medical practitioner as well as physician-assisted suicide for patients
suffering from a terminal illness. On July 1st, 1996 the Act was proclaimed and it survived scrutiny in Wake v
Northern Territory Australia. Problems however arose as the Federal Government was heavily opposed to
the Act. The opposition of the Federal Government led to the enactment of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997
which removed the power from the Northern Territory to pass legislation on this matter. This was possible
because the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory as well as the Norfolk Island form part of

9 | P a g e
Territory government and are therefore not completely independent in relation to government as the states
of Australia are. The Commonwealth legislation, the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997, consequently overturned
the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, but the Euthanasia Laws Act does not apply retrospectively.
These developments indicate that euthanasia has been highly contentious in Australia: while many members
of the public were in favor of legalizing euthanasia, the federal government was opposed to it. The passing
of the Euthanasia Laws Act consequently criminalized euthanasia.
This jurisdiction has a rich legal history regarding assisted death and has made the most advances in
comparison to other jurisdictions.
2.3 The Netherlands
This jurisdiction has a rich legal history regarding assisted death and has made the most advances in
comparison to other jurisdictions. With the enactment of the Dutch Penal Code in 1881 came the
criminalization of euthanasia as well as assisted suicide. Even though these acts are explicitly prohibited in
terms of the Dutch Penal Code, case law since 1973 has determined that acts of euthanasia and assisted
suicide should receive a lesser punishment than prescribed in legislation. The Postma-case serves as the
catalyst in the assisted death debate in the Netherlands. The accused in this case was a medical doctor who
provided a deadly dose of morphine to her mother after she had made numerous requests to end her life.
Doctor Postma was found guilty of euthanasia by the Regional Court in Leeuwarden. The significance of the
judgment can be found in the sentence imposed by the court. In this instance the court opted for a token
sentence, which consisted of a suspended sentence of one-week imprisonment as well as one-year
probation. This was a just sentence, but also served to establish the view that euthanasia would be effectively
sanctioned in those circumstances where the patient had voluntarily requested his death and had no other
means of relief.
less than ten years after the Postma judgment the Dutch Supreme Court was faced with a case of similar
facts - the Alkmaar-case. In this instance the accused, doctor Schoonheim, euthanised his 85-year-old
patient by way of lethal injection. The court went even further in this case by exonerating the accused instead
of opting for a conviction accompanied by a light sentence. The court went on to find that euthanasia could
be justifiable if the circumstances allowed it. The formal basis for excusing euthanasia and assisted suicide in
these circumstances was the defence of necessity. The court stated that even though euthanasia and assisted
suicide was ordinarily punishable, doctors were faced with conflicting duties in these circumstances –

10 | P a g e
professional ethical obligations and the request of a patient to die with dignity. In these circumstances an
investigation was necessary in order to ascertain whether the decision of the medical practitioner was
responsible and in line with the criteria as set by medical ethics.
One should however not disregard the rationale followed by the courts in these instances. The court in its
judgment focused on the conflicting duties of medical practitioners, instead of following the traditional
arguments of liberty, autonomy and dignity. This is very important as the emphasis is on the accused’s rights
rather than the rights of the patient who requested to die with dignity. This is also in direct contrast to other
jurisdictions where the focus of the debate is on the constitutional rights of the patient, which include dignity,
privacy and equality.
Following the decision by the Dutch Supreme Court, the Royal Dutch Medical Association set out further
guidelines so as to clarify the circumstances in which euthanasia would be justifiable and therefore stipulated
the conditions for a medical practitioner to have a defense. The guidelines were adopted by the Ministry of
Justice and confirmed that medical practitioners would not be prosecuted for euthanasia or assisted suicide
if they followed the guidelines. The guidelines focused on the nature of the request, the condition of the
patient, steps to be taken by the medical practitioner, and the existence of alternatives.
Towards the end of 2000 the legality of euthanasia and assisted suicide became even more certain with the
passing of the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act 2001. Even though
euthanasia and assisted suicide were effectively approved and accepted before the enactment of the Act,
more clarity is provided by the Act. The Act consequently goes a step further by formally legalising
euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The Act of 2001 thus amends the Penal Code so that when a
medical practitioner carries out the termination of life on request or assists in the suicide of a patient, he will
not be guilty of a criminal offence – but only if the criteria as set out in the Act are met. The two basic
conditions that must be met by the medical practitioner are the due care requirement and the reporting
requirement.
The changes brought about by the Act are realized through the incorporation of an exemption from the
punishment as specified in the Penal Code. If the requirements of the Act are not met, the exemption will
not apply and the medical practitioner could still be punished in terms of the Penal Code. The requirements
as set out in the Act are very similar to those of the guidelines as discussed above. The reason for not
tightening or restricting the due care and reporting criteria, lies in the intention of the legislature as they felt
that the only change necessary was to formulate the grounds more broadly. The Act sets out that the medical

11 | P a g e
practitioner must be satisfied that the patient’s request is both voluntary and carefully considered. The
medical practitioner must also be satisfied that the patient’s suffering was unbearable as well as that there
was no prospect of improvement of the patient’s condition. The medical practitioner is also required to have
informed the patient of his prospects and must then, together with the patient, reach the conclusion that no
other alternative than that of euthanasia or assisted suicide is available to the patient. The medical
practitioner is furthermore required to consult at least one other, independent medical practitioner that has
seen the patient to give a written opinion on the previous mentioned due care criteria. Lastly the medical
practitioner is under the obligation to end the patient’s life or assist with the suicide with due medical
attention and care. It is also required that the medical practitioner who carries out the euthanasia or
assistance for the suicide, must be the patient’s own doctor. What this means is that the Dutch have excluded
the opportunity for persons from other jurisdictions to travel to the Netherlands in order to access
euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Five regional review committees still exist in terms of the Act, as they did in terms of the guidelines, but their
role has changed to some degree. Under the previous guidelines, the medical practitioner was required to
report the termination of a patient’s life not only to a coroner, but also to one of these review committees.
The committee consists of a minimum of one lawyer, one ethicist and one doctor – this composition is the
same in the guidelines as well as in the Act. After the matter was reported to the committee, it was
responsible for submitting a report to the Public Prosecutor Service in order to determine whether action
should be taken against the medical practitioner. This has however been changed by the enactment of the
Act. In circumstances where the committee is of the opinion that all due care criteria have been met by the
medical practitioner, the case is over and it is therefore no longer necessary to inform the Public Prosecutor
Service of all instances. The level of scrutiny of doctors is effectively watered down by this change. The Public
Prosecutor is thus only informed in the instance where the committee is not convinced that all the criteria
have been met by the medical practitioner. If the Public Prosecutor suspects a criminal act, it is within his
power to then launch an investigation so as to ascertain whether criminal charges should be pressed.
Much progress has been made in the Netherlands since the Postma-judgment and many positive
developments have been implemented in regulation of assisted death. The model followed by the Dutch is
detailed and one can argue that the safeguards implemented such as the due care and reporting
requirements together with the fact that euthanasia and assisted suicide can only be accessed by residents,
serve to prevent abuse of the system whilst at the same time ensuring the dignified death of those that

12 | P a g e
request it. The position in the Netherlands indicates that the government considered public opinion when
the legal status of assisted death was considered.
2.4 The United States of America.
In the United States of America only a few states have gone so far as to legalize physician-assisted suicide,
thus providing only for state law and not federal law. In the United States provision is only made for
physician-assisted suicide and not euthanasia. These states are: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, New Mexico
and Montana, but their method of legalizing differs as some states have passed legislation on the matter and
others have only dealt with the issue in their case law. Physician-assisted suicide is however only an option
to residents, to avoid becoming a destination for physician-assisted suicide tourism. Patient autonomy and
informed consent are two concepts that are firmly entrenched in American law and together with
constitutionally protected rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to liberty, serve as the basis for
the rights that patients insist on when receiving medical care.
The first American state to legalize physician-assisted suicide was the state of Oregon, situated in the Pacific
Northwest of the United States. The Oregon Death with Dignity Act was the result of a citizens’ initiative and
was passed by Oregon voters in November 1994 for the first time. A legal injunction caused the delay of the
implementation of the Act, but the Supreme Court of Appeals denied the petition and consequently also
lifted the injunction on the 27th of November 1997. Following the decision made by the Supreme Court of
Appeals, measure 51 was placed on the general election ballot requesting the voters of Oregon to repeal the
Death with Dignity Act. This attempt was unsuccessful as voters rejected measure 51, thus retaining the
Death with Dignity Act and thereby confirmed Oregon as the first and only state in the United States, at that
time, to legalize physician-assisted suicide.
The path after enactment of the Death with Dignity Act was however not that smooth, as many considered
it to be controversial and consequently the Act came under attack. The United States Attorney General issued
a new interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act in 2001 which resulted in the prohibition of doctors
prescribing controlled substances in the practice of physician-assisted suicide. In response to the action taken
by the Attorney General, the state of Oregon filed against the state and a district court answered by issuing
a temporary restraining order against the ruling made by the Attorney General whilst a new hearing was
pending. A United States District Court Judge ruled in favour of the state of Oregon and upheld the Death
with Dignity Act. This decision was appealed against by the Attorney General, but a three-judge panel denied
the appeal. The Attorney General was still not satisfied and filed an appeal that a judging panel of 11 judges

13 | P a g e
was necessary to rehear his motion, this was consequently also denied by the court. The Attorney General
then went even further by requesting the United States Supreme Court to review the decision. After hearing
arguments in the case, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, thereby declaring the
legality of the Death with Dignity Act. The result of this entire process is that the Death with Dignity Act still
remains in force.
The Oregon Death with Dignity Act therefore allows medical practitioners to prescribe a lethal dose of
medication to a patient, if the criteria in the Death with Dignity Act are met. It is necessary for the patient to
be in the final six months of his life due to terminal illness. Two oral requests as well as a written request
that are separated by two weeks is necessary. Furthermore, two medical practitioners must confirm the
patient’s diagnosis before a prescription can be given. The patient that is requesting the prescription must
be mentally competent and the drugs that are prescribed must be administered by the patient themselves.
Lastly physician-assisted suicide is only available to residents of the state, which in terms of the Act can be
determined by being in the possession of a valid driver’s license.
Following the developments in Oregon, other states started to follow suit. The state of Washington passed
its Death with Dignity Act in 2009, which is very similar to the Oregon legislation and Vermont passed its
Patient Choice and Control at End of Life Act.84 In the state of Montana the issue was dealt with in case law
when the State District Court confirmed the patient’s right to physician-assisted suicide.
This position differs from that of Oregon and Washington as the court based its decision on the constitution
of Montana instead of specific legislation. The court based its judgment on the argument that the right to
die with dignity without state intrusion was guaranteed by the Montana Constitution.
The Oregon Death with Dignity Act serves as a guideline to other states that want to take steps in legalizing
assisted death.
In the United States of America two approaches have been used to legalize physician-assisted suicide –
through specific legislation or in terms of case law. Both approaches focus on the rights of the patients and
his/her right to die with dignity. When examining the approaches followed by these states it can be argued
that they are very similar, grounding the argument in the right to die with dignity, thereby focusing on
autonomy and the prevention of state intrusion in the private life. Certain criteria must be met, and the
circumstances must allow for the physician-assisted suicide to be regarded as valid. These criteria serve as
an important method of regulation and assure that the practice of physician-assisted suicide is not abused.
One must also note that these specific states have only legalized physician-assisted suicide, and not

14 | P a g e
euthanasia. This is because this model focuses on mental capacity and the fact that responsibility lies with
the patient to take the final step in ending his own life. A prescription can therefore be given by a medical
practitioner, but the patient still has a choice whether to administer the drugs or not.
2.5Conclusion For This chapter.
When comparing the legal position in these jurisdictions, it is important to take note of the fact that the
models employed are the product of the social and cultural context of those specific jurisdictions. Differences
in the method and regulation preferred are thus not only apparent, but in many instances also necessary.
One can therefore not just export an existing model from one jurisdiction and transplant it in another and
expect it to be successful.
The point of departure for the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide and the manner of its
development in these jurisdictions is also noteworthy. In jurisdictions such as the Netherlands and
Switzerland, change occurred through a gradual development of the law by changes in the Criminal Code,
positive approaches followed in case law and then only later enacting legislation. A possible advantage of
this method is that support could be more easily garnered if the changes are incremental rather than sudden.
At the same time the argument can be made that incremental change does not provide the public with the
same opportunity to express their views and to openly scrutinize the proposed legislation or stance to be
followed by the legal system.
From the examination of the jurisdictions discussed above it appears as if physician-assisted death is
accepted more easily than euthanasia. In most instances there are criteria that must be met for the
assisted suicide or euthanasia to be considered legal. The argument of whether these criteria truly fulfill
their purpose can be swayed to both sides. Some argue that the criteria serve as appropriate safeguards
against abuse, whereas others feel that the criteria are mere guidelines and therefore not true safeguards
in ensuring the protection of the vulnerable. This will be addressed when an evaluation of assisted death
based on human dignity is made in chapter seven. The success and/or abuse of assisted death in these
jurisdictions have also been met with different opinions, but a thorough examination of this specific aspect
of assisted death will not be pursued further as the main objective of the dissertation is to ascertain
whether assisted death is justifiable based on the right to human dignity.

15 | P a g e
CHAPTER III - Terminology
➢ Classification of euthanasia and assisted suicide.
➢ Dead or alive.

16 | P a g e
3.Terminology
3.1 Classification of euthanasia and assisted suicide
Before the relationship between human dignity and assisted death can be examined, it is first necessary to
define the relevant terms that are used in the literature. There are different types or forms of assisted death
and it is important to distinguish between them. It is also necessary to provide a definitional framework for
these concepts before one can evaluate them on a moral and legal level. The following terms are relevant
and will therefore be defined: euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia, non-voluntary euthanasia, involuntary
euthanasia, assisted suicide/physician-assisted suicide, active euthanasia, passive euthanasia and, lastly,
assisted death.
As there are clear sides to the debate, those in favor of legalization and those against, various self-serving
definitions have been advanced, but these definitions are used as a way of gaining an undeserved definitional
edge. When defining the concept of euthanasia, it is therefore imperative to avoid a definitional bias that
could possibly give an unmerited advantage to either side.10 “Euthanasia” finds its origin in Greek and if
broadly translated it can mean ‘happy death’ or ‘good death’ as it is derived from the words EU meaning
good or well, and Thanatos meaning death. Euthanasia is commonly defined as the practice or action of one
person deliberately/intentionally killing another, not because of threat or punishment for a committed
crime, but rather to bring about a painless and gentle death. Euthanasia is most commonly associated with
those that have a terminal illness where treatment will have no further effect, or the patient has no hope of
recovery. These patients are usually in great physical pain and endure suffering to such an extent that
palliative care no longer suffices. In this dissertation the practice of euthanasia will not be restricted to those
suffering from a terminal illness. When one defines euthanasia too narrowly one risks disregarding some of
the most important arguments in favor of legalizing euthanasia; it also does not consider the Netherlands,
where euthanasia has been legalized, and where the practice of euthanasia has not been limited to only
those who suffer from a terminal illness. The situations of patients with terminal illnesses as well as those
not suffering from terminal illnesses will therefore be considered to ensure an encompassing and
comprehensive analysis of whether the legalization of assisted death can be justified on the ground of human
dignity.
Legalized euthanasia typically involves a doctor giving a patient a lethal injection to end the patient’s life. In
the instance that a close family member ends the life of that person to relieve suffering or pain, it is generally
regarded as ‘mercy killing’ and not a form of euthanasia. The way in which legalized euthanasia is defined in
terms of legislation will therefore determine which acts would be regarded as forms of legalized euthanasia
and would be therefore be permissible.
Euthanasia is then classified as voluntary, non-voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia is when the
patient requests his death or gives consent to his death. On the opposite end is non-voluntary euthanasia,
where no permission or request is given by the patient as the patient is unable to express an opinion due to
lack of capacity. Another person, in most cases a relative or physician, believes that the patient would want
their life to end and then ends the patient’s life. Involuntary euthanasia takes place when the patient has not
agreed to the procedure and is therefore not a willing participant. Involuntary euthanasia thus takes place
against the patient’s wishes and is occasionally based on the idea or belief that euthanasia would be
economically efficient. This form of euthanasia is widely rejected and considered as murder, and it is most

17 | P a g e
commonly associated with genocide in Germany by the Nazi regime. Voluntary, non-voluntary and
involuntary euthanasia can further be categorized to be either passive or active euthanasia. Passive
euthanasia takes place by means of an omission, whereas active euthanasia occurs through a commission.
Selective non-treatment, which includes circumstances where life-prolonging medicine is withheld or
withdrawn, is understood to be passive euthanasia as death is brought about by the lack of a positive action.
When dealing with passive euthanasia it is also important to note that some authors believe that a distinction
should be drawn between ‘killing’ and ‘letting die’. Passive euthanasia allows a patient who is mentally
competent to refuse medical treatment, even when this refusal will most likely lead to the patient’s death.
This behavior will be defined as a form of ‘letting die’. Active euthanasia, where a deliberative act directly
causes the death of the patient, is in contrast regarded as ‘killing’.20 This distinction between active and
passive euthanasia plays a central role in the debate regarding the legalization of euthanasia, as it is here
where the opposing sides have been the most vocal. This is of course understandable given the practical
significance that accompanies the distinction. The significance of the distinction between active and passive
euthanasia can be related to the acts and omissions of doctors as well as the difference between ordinary
and extraordinary medical treatment.
Assisted suicide deals with the situation where an ill person is assisted by another to take his own life. This
is done by providing the means or information to carry out the action. Most commonly this will be by
providing lethal drugs, but it can also be through providing a prescription for the drugs or indicating a lethal
dosage. In the instance where a doctor is the person to aid one can refer to the occurrence as physician-
assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide is the form of assisted suicide that is lobbied for legalization.
From the definitions of euthanasia and assisted suicide one can see that there are similarities between the
practices, but one must take note of the significant difference – those involved in the final act. It is therefore
very important to note that in the case of euthanasia the patient does not take his own life, but it is through
the act of another that the patient’s death occurs. The person involved, most commonly a medical
practitioner, will therefore be the one to administer the lethal drug. Contrary to this, assisted suicide takes
place when the patient takes the final step to take his own life. This is however only possible because of the
help of another, who will in most cases provide the medicine to make the suicide possible. In cases of assisted
suicide, the patient is mentally competent to request the help of another.
When the term ‘assisted death’ is used throughout the dissertation, it will refer to all the different forms.
When arguing or referring to the legalization of assisted death, it will only be in relation to physician-assisted
suicide and active voluntary euthanasia and not any other type. In most instances reference will explicitly be
made to these two types of assisted death, but if not, I refer only to them. When only referring to a specific
form of assisted death it will therefore be clearly indicated.
This dissertation will primarily focus on the legality of voluntary active euthanasia and assisted suicide by
examining if the right to human dignity serves a proper justification for the legalization of assisted death.
Passive euthanasia will only be discussed to the extent necessary to provide context for the legalization of
assisted death. Passive euthanasia will therefore not be discussed in any detail. As the dissertation will focus
on the argument of securing death with dignity by the avoidance of futile suffering and the maintenance of
personal control, only voluntary euthanasia will be discussed in detail.
3.2 Dead or alive.
A determination on the relationship between the law of homicide and assisted death is very important in
the manner that they relate to the concept of human dignity. Before one can analyses how these three

18 | P a g e
concepts interact, it is first necessary to ascertain when life ends, and death begins on a legal, moral and
philosophical level. Aided by advances in technology and science, medical professionals now can keep a
body alive even after the brain has died and they can also revive a person who previously would have been
regarded as dead. Consequently, it is necessary to both clinically and legally define what should be
understood when interpreting the concept ‘dead.’
The definition of medically dead took a new turn after the first heart transplant surgery was performed by
Doctor Barnard in South Africa in 1967. For a heart transplant to be successful the operation must be
performed before the organ stops functioning to ensure that the organ is not damaged. However, if death is
defined in relation to circulation and respiration, then the removal of the heart would directly lead to the
death of the patient and then be regarded as murder. One can clearly perceive that a definition of death is
essential to offer patients the benefit of organ transplants and artificial ventilation, while at the same time
protecting medical practitioners from criminal sanctions.
The position in South Africa can be found in different pieces of legislation as there is no general legal
definition of what should be understood with the concept of ‘death’. The National Health Act serves as one
example which defines ‘death’ as being brain dead. The general position in South African law is that death is
established if the patient is brain dead. This is also the international position.
3.3 Killing versus letting Die.
Legally, the practice of treatment withdrawal is standard medical treatment, whilst assisted death could
amount to murder. Everything therefore comes down to the distinction between killing and letting die, and
the difference between omissions and positive acts. The moral distinction between killing and letting die
relates directly to the difference between failing to help the patient and positively harming someone. Both
these forms of conduct will lead to the death of patient, but does the difference between giving a lethal
injection and the removal of a feeding tube justify the completely different responses and consequences that
the law applies? It is here where the distinction between active and passive euthanasia is so important, as it
plays a central role in debates on the legalization of assisted death.
Emily Jackson, Professor of Law and a leading author on the euthanasia debate, argues, in my view
convincingly, in favor of legalizing euthanasia and makes the contention that the differences between
these two types of actions are not sufficient to bear the moral weight that the law ascribes to it.

19 | P a g e
CHAPTER IV – Finding conclusion
and suggestion’s
➢ Findings.
➢ Conclusion.
➢ Suggestion’s.

20 | P a g e
4.1 Findings
“Euthanasia is a conflict between Life and Death” is proved that life is a gift of god but death is not.
The conflict of Life and Death is distinguished by Euthanasia and suicide. Suicide means intentional
termination of one’s life/act of killing deliberately. But euthanasia is not killing yourself deliberately.
The factors which result into suicide are different than those of euthanasia. Sucide is an offence
punishable U/Sec. 309 0f I.P.C. but passive euthanasia is permissable in India.
“Indian law is based on ‘Ahinsa’, voluntary death is taken as an attempt to suicide leading to criminal
offence and has been subjected to criticism, vilification and condemnation” is proved. As the Indian
society and law is based on ‘Ahinsa’, but the concept of euthanasia has shaken this concept of Ahinsa.
If euthanasia permitted in both its form then it will lead to many involuntary deaths which will
indirectly cause violence, as euthanasia is taken as an attempt to suicide leading to criminal offence.
“Passive euthanasia, which is allowed in many countries, can have legal recognition in India but it is
a subject of conflict and complexities” is proved. The complications involved in the legalizing it in India
is a bold step, which requires detailed study and training of the medical practitioners, para-medical
staff, advocates and nonetheless public.
“When someone is terminally ill and not conscious or of unsound mind and is ill passive euthanasia
lawfully can be granted without his consent” is proved. When a person who is unconscious and
terminally ill or who is of unsound mind and terminally ill patient and in such a stage he is not in
apposition to give consent as to whether passive euthanasia should be granted to him or not? Then
in such a case passive euthanasia can be granted to him without his consent. This aspect has been
explained in 2 of this research. There is not much to argue about this problem as the Apex court has
legalized passive euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaugh’s case.

21 | P a g e
4.2 Conclusion
It could be exaggerating to say that the issue of legalizing euthanasia is over and there is hope of
putting it into an enactment in the near future. Making a law is not a solution on every problem
we face in day to day life. Mercy killing is not a common situation but quite a rare condition. One
in thousands situation medical practitioners come across cases of patients with chronic
conditions, where euthanasia is considered. It is not a common case. Taking into account
euthanasia in case of a patient with PVS state is practical but that does not happen with every
such case. Evaluating every case in here is not practical and won’t serve the purpose of the
research. It is important to assess the practical task behind legalizing euthanasia in India.
Countries where euthanasia is legal in all aspects, the practice of the same has turned into a
convention. The mechanism has seen a long span of time tackling obstacles and setting new
norms. It is not the situation that the practice is full proof and without loopholes in those nations.
During that period the nations and their citizens have gone through a radical change in the
medical field as well as human perspective. It has developed the mindset of the whole community
towards forming the opinion about choosing death over life. This understanding has flowed
through generations now, which is pretty much revolutionary.
What India needs is the maturity to handle the issue and understanding its pros and cons
thoroughly.
The requirement of having legislation on euthanasia depends on the intensity of number of
patients with terminal illness and the gravity of such situations. It is not commonly accepted in
India. What a situation would demand in future and what would be its repercussions are matter
of unknown reality. Indian population has not developed the healthy potential required for
legalizing active euthanasia.
Let us say that there exists a law on euthanasia in India. Nobody can guarantee its 100% legal
compliance or the possible and probable abuse by the society and medical practitioners and
hospitals. What is the possibility of violation of norms in case where the patients involved do not
prefer and consider euthanasia? An especially dangerous aspect is that such abuse can be easily
made undetectable. Thus, although mercy killing appears to be morally justifiable, its fool-proof
practicability seems near to impossible.

22 | P a g e
4.3 Suggestions
A close perusal of the arguments against euthanasia that have been summarized above tend to
indicate that all the talk about sanctity of life notwithstanding, the opposition to euthanasia breeds
from the fear of misuse of the right if it is permitted.
It is feared that placing the discretion in the hands of the doctor would be placing too much power in
his hands and he may misuse it. This fear stems largely from the fact that the discretionary power is
placed in the hands of non-judicial personnel (a doctor in this case). This is so because we do not shirk
from placing the same kind of power in the hands of a judge (for example, when we give the judge
the power to decide whether to award a death sentence or a sentence of imprisonment for life). But
what is surprising is that the fear is of the very person (the doctor) in who’s hands we would otherwise
not be afraid of placing our lives. A doctor with a scalpel in his hands is acceptable but not a doctor
with a fatal injection. What is even more surprising is that ordinarily the law does not readily accept
negligence on the part of a doctor. The Courts tread with great caution when examining the decision
of a doctor and yet his decision in the cases of euthanasia is not considered reliable.
It is felt that a terminally ill patient who suffers from unbearable pain should be allowed to die.
Indeed, spending valuable time, money, and facilities on a person who has neither the desire nor the
hope of recovery is nothing but a waste of the same. At this juncture it would not be out of place to
mention that the “liberty to die”, if not right in strict sense, may be read as part of the right to life
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Recently the judgment of our Supreme Court in
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India legalized the passive euthanasia and observed that
passive euthanasia is permissible under supervision of law in exceptional circumstances, but active
euthanasia is not permitted under the law.
Here it is sought only to agree for the legalization of voluntary (both active and passive) euthanasia.
This is because though there may be some cases of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia where
one may sympathize with the patient and in which one may agree that letting the patient die was the
best possible option, yet it is believed that it would be very difficult to separate each case from the
other cases of non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Thus, it is believed that the potential of
misuse of provisions allowing non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia is far greater than that of the
misuse of provisions seeking to permit voluntary euthanasia. It is submitted that in the present
scheme of criminal law it is not possible to construe the provisions to include voluntary euthanasia

23 | P a g e
without including the non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia while expressly prohibiting non-
voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Coming back to the argument of the opponents of euthanasia
that any legislation legalizing voluntary euthanasia would lead to a misuse of the provisions, I would
now like to present a scheme by which such misuse could be minimized. The risk and fear of misuse
and abuse could be done away with proper safeguards and specific guidelines. Though in this regard
the 196th Law Commission Report and the guidelines given in the Aruna’s case are there and
guidelines will continue to be the law until Parliament makes a law on this point.
It is better to leave the issue with the judiciary, until we prepare ourselves emotionally and practically
to accept it as part of our life.
The countries which have legalized euthanasia, are pretty small in case its territory. The population
therein is more literate and is aware about their rights and dangers of euthanasia. Additionally, the
machinery in play is sophisticated.
Indian population has a larger portion of illiterates than the literates. The literate population is not
much liberal about euthanasia and might not approve its legalization. We Indians deal with such
issues with sentiments and which cannot override our reasoned decisions.

24 | P a g e
CHAPTER V – References,
Bibliography.
➢ Bibliography
➢ References

25 | P a g e
5.1 Bibliography
Articles Consulted and Referred
(1) Marya Mannes, "Euthanasia v. Right to Life, "Baylor Law Review", 1995.
(2) Angkina Saikia, "Euthanasia "Is it Right to kill" or "Right To Die", Cri LJ 2010
(3) J.S. Rajawat, Euthanasia, Cri LJ, 2010
(4) Sarah Boseley, Call for non-consent euthanasia, the Guardian, 2010
(5) Damin Keown, "End of Life: The Buddhist View", Lancet, 2005
(6) Joseph Fletcher, "Infanticide and the ethics of loving concern, 1978
(7) JM Appeal, "Neo-natal Euthanasia: Why Require Parental Consent?”Journal of Bioethical
Inquiry, 2009
(8) Cesar Roy
Books and Reports Consulted and Referred
(1) 20th Century Encyclopedia
(2) Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia, 2000
(3) Brian Polland, Human Rights and Euthanasia, 1999
(4) 196th Report of Law Commission of India, (2010) 17th Ed.

26 | P a g e
5.2 References
(1) http:/ /www.buzzle.com
(2) http:/ /www.family.org.au/care
(3) http:/ /www.legalservicesindia.com
(4) http://www.differencebetween.net
(5) http://www.missionislam.com
(6) http: / /www.angelfire.com
(7) http:/ /www.wilkipedia.org
(8) http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in
(9) http://www.vatican. va/ roman-curia/anaesthesia
(10) http://www.euthanasia.com
(11) http://www.mciindia.org
(12) http://www.medscape.com
(13) http://www.articles.times of India.com
(14) http://www.hospicevolunteerassociation.org

Right to live right to die with dignity special context to euthanasia

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Similar to Right to live right to die with dignity special context to euthanasia

Similar to Right to live right to die with dignity special context to euthanasia (16)

More from kbinayakiya

More from kbinayakiya (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Right to live right to die with dignity special context to euthanasia