Euthanasia And Consent Issues
What is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia refers to the act of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve suffering.
It is broadly classified into:
Active Euthanasia: Direct action causing death (e.g., administering a lethal injection).
Passive Euthanasia: Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.
Voluntary euthanasia: With the consent of the patient.
Non-voluntary euthanasia: Without consent (patient unable to consent).
Involuntary euthanasia: Against the patient’s will (illegal).
Consent Issues in Euthanasia
The key legal and ethical challenge is consent: whether the patient has given informed consent to end life.
Consent must be competent, voluntary, and informed.
Issues arise around patients in vegetative or persistent vegetative state (PVS), where direct consent cannot be given.
Role of advance directives or living wills comes into play.
Courts balance right to life (Article 21, Constitution of India) and right to die with dignity.
Key Case Laws on Euthanasia and Consent in India
1. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 454
Facts: Aruna Shanbaug was in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for over 37 years due to assault. A petition was filed seeking permission for passive euthanasia.
Judgment:
Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia (withholding or withdrawing treatment) under strict guidelines.
Denied mercy killing (active euthanasia).
Emphasized the role of hospital medical boards to decide in best interest.
Significance:
Landmark ruling legalizing passive euthanasia in India.
Recognized dignity and humane considerations but cautioned strict safeguards.
Consent Aspect: Since Aruna was incapable of consent, decision was taken by medical authorities considering her welfare.
2. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) 5 SCC 1
Facts: Petition filed for legal recognition of living wills and right to refuse treatment (advance directives).
Judgment:
Supreme Court recognized right to die with dignity as part of right to life.
Legalized passive euthanasia with the execution of a valid advance directive.
Laid down procedure for implementation of living wills and withdrawal of life support.
Significance:
Gave patients the power to consent in advance.
Strengthened autonomy and consent framework in euthanasia cases.
Consent Aspect: Emphasized prior informed consent through living wills as crucial.
3. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946
Facts: Challenge to constitutional validity of laws criminalizing suicide and euthanasia.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held right to life does not include right to die.
Suicide and euthanasia are illegal.
Significance:
Rejected euthanasia and assisted suicide at the time.
Consent Aspect: Court upheld state’s interest in protecting life even against individual consent.
4. P. Rathinam v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1844
Facts: Challenged Section 309 IPC (attempt to suicide).
Judgment:
Earlier Supreme Court decision held right to life includes right to die.
However, this was overruled by Gian Kaur case.
Significance:
Shows evolving judicial thought on euthanasia and consent.
Consent Aspect: Early recognition of autonomy in choosing death.
5. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
Facts: Case on death penalty.
Judgment:
Though not directly on euthanasia, court held life is precious and should be protected.
Highlighted sanctity of life principle.
Significance:
Helps frame understanding of consent and sanctity of life in euthanasia debates.
6. X v. Union of India (2023) (Hypothetical/Recent rulings)
Though no landmark ruling yet, courts increasingly emphasize patient autonomy and informed consent in end-of-life care.
Medical ethics and legal consent norms are evolving with technology and societal changes.
Summary Table: Consent and Euthanasia in Case Laws
| Case | Type of Euthanasia | Consent Aspect | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aruna Shanbaug (2011) | Passive | Medical board decisions; patient incapacitated | Passive euthanasia legalized with safeguards |
| Common Cause (2018) | Passive with advance directive | Living wills and prior consent | Legal recognition of advance directives |
| Gian Kaur (1996) | Rejected euthanasia | Consent does not extend to right to die | Euthanasia illegal at that time |
| P. Rathinam (1994) | Early acceptance | Recognized right to die | Overruled by Gian Kaur later |
| Bachan Singh (1980) | Sanctity of life | Emphasis on protecting life | Supports cautious approach to euthanasia |
Key Legal Principles on Consent and Euthanasia
Competent Consent: Patient must be mentally competent and informed.
Advance Directives: Valid and clear living wills carry legal weight.
Best Interest: If consent not possible, decisions by medical board or family must prioritize patient's welfare.
Safeguards: Strict guidelines to prevent abuse or coercion.
Right to Die with Dignity: Recognized but within constitutional limits.
Conclusion
Euthanasia and consent issues remain complex and sensitive in Indian law. The judiciary has evolved from strict prohibition to a nuanced acceptance of passive euthanasia under strict conditions, especially where consent cannot be given. The landmark Aruna Shanbaug and Common Cause cases form the foundation of current law, balancing autonomy, dignity, and protection of life.
RELATED Blog
0 comments