Article: Changes to Passive Euthanasia Rules: Simplicity and Efficiency
In a pivotal development, the Supreme Court of India has made significant amendments to the rules surrounding passive euthanasia. The overarching intention behind these alterations is to streamline and simplify the process, reducing the time and complexity involved.
Key Amendments to Passive Euthanasia Guidelines
The court has chosen to revise its earlier judgement, eliminating the need for a judicial magistrate’s attestation or countersignature on a living will. It now dictates that an attestation by a notary or a gazetted officer is sufficient for authenticating a valid living will.
Taking steps towards digitization, the Supreme Court mandates that the living will no longer be under the district court’s purview but instead be integrated into the National Health Digital Record. This change would facilitate easy access to the document for hospitals and doctors nationwide.
Should a hospital’s medical board refuse permission to cease medical treatment, the patient’s family retains the right to appeal to the relevant high court. The high court then forms a new panel of medical experts to aid the court in making the final decision.
Understanding Passive Euthanasia
Passive euthanasia is an act where medical treatment is intentionally withheld or withdrawn with the aim of allowing a person to die naturally. Unlike active euthanasia, which involves direct intervention to end a person’s life – such as administering a lethal injection, passive euthanasia does not actively advance a person’s death.
Euthanasia in India: A Matter of ‘Living Will’
In 2018, the Supreme Court of India took a landmark decision to legalize passive euthanasia, upholding it as a matter of “living will”. According to this ruling, an adult who is fully conscious may refuse medical treatment or willingly decide against obtaining medical treatment, thus accepting death in a natural manner, under certain parameters. It also established guidelines for a “living will” made by terminally ill patients who are aware of their potential deterioration into a permanent vegetative state.
The court prominently articulated that dignity in the process of dying is as crucial a part of the right to life under Article 21 as living itself. Depriving an individual of this dignity at life’s end effectively robs them of a meaningful existence.
Global Overview: Euthanasia Laws
Euthanasia laws differ substantially across the globe. Countries like Netherland, Luxembourg, Belgium allow both euthanasia and assisted suicide for those enduring “unbearable suffering” with no prospects of improvement. On the other hand, Switzerland bans euthanasia but permits assisted dying in the presence of a healthcare professional.
Canada’s recent decision to legalize euthanasia and assisted dying for mentally ill patients by March 2023 has sparked widespread controversy, potentially causing delays in implementing the directive. Meanwhile, in the United States, there are variations in euthanasia laws across different states, with some like Washington, Oregon, and Montana permitting euthanasia.
UPSC Civil Services Examination Query
In the Civil Services Examination of previous years, there was a question that related to the Right to Privacy as an intrinsic element of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. The question asked which part of the Indian Constitution best encapsulates this association. The correct answer was Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III.
