Author:- Pooja Kriplani
Euthanasia comes from the Greek word “EU” (good) and Thanatos’s (death), and it means good that gentle and painless death. This word has come to be used from Mercy killing; it is the act or practises of ending the life of a person either by Lethal Injection or suspensions of medical treatment. Euthanasia word first used by Francis bacon in medicines in the 17th century which provides and refers to an easy, painless, happy death, He finds out that it was the responsibility of physicians to elevate the physical suffering of the body. Also, passive Euthanasia was legal in India but had some strict guidelines since, in March 2018, patients must consent through a living will and must be terminally ill or in a vegetative state.
On 9th March 2018, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive Euthanasia using the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Anurag Shambaugh, who had been in a persistent vegetative state until her death in 2015. Later in march 2018, the SC passed a historic judgment law permitting passive Euthanasia in the country.
What is Passive Euthanasia?
Passive Euthanasia generally provides the withdrawal of medical treatments with the deliberate intention which has done that of terminally ill patients. Commonly, passive Euthanasia occurs when a patient Die because a medical professional is a don’t do something necessary to keep the patient alive or when they stop doing something that particular thing patient actual that can do that by switch off light supportive Machines by disconnecting a feeding tube doesn’t carry out a life external in Operation doesn’t give life-extending drugs.
In the case of Aruna Shanbaug’s case (1st June 1948 – 18th May 2015) in this case held that the Indian nurse who was at the centre of attention in the court case on Euthanasia after spending 37 years in a vegetative state as a result of sexual assault, on 27th November 1973 she was strangled and sodomized by Sohanlal Valmiki a sweeper during the attack she was strangled with a chain and the deprivation of oxygen has left her in a vegetative state have ever seen. She has been treated at k.E.M. in this case victim kept alive by ending tube, on behalf of her friend Pinki Virani, a social activist find a petition in Supreme Court arguing that the continued existence of Aruna is a violation of her right to leave in dignity the Supreme Court on made its decision on 7th March 2011 the Court rejected active the plea To discontinue Aruna life support but issued a set of board guidelines realize passive Euthanasia in India.
The Supreme Court decision to reserve the discontinuation of Aruna Lite support was based on the fact that the hospital staff who treat and take care of it did not support you thinking you’re telling her she died from pneumonia on 18th May 2015 after being in a coma for a period of 42 years the Supreme Court decision.
Arguments regarding wrongness of Euthanasia
The argument it was found that Euthanasia is always morally wrong, but the behaviour which is described in the standard and is passive Euthanasia is not always morally wrong there so it cannot we are a form of Euthanasia. So there is no such thing as passive Euthanasia, but later on, there was some another argument like scene simplistic and impressive. However, there is perhaps a slightly better way of articulating it some concepts, so the argument goes our moral concept or at least have a moral dimension for example murder understood there as a moral rather than a legal term is typically define as wrongful killing.
There were so many arguments and objections to being with it as human too much it starts from the claim that Euthanasia is never justified and built into the definition of Euthanasia excluding on ground of conceptual incoherence the possibility of there being an acceptable form of Euthanasia this not only excludes the possibility of passive Euthanasia but also exclude the possibility of moral debates about the ethical standing.
The response of constitution bench regarding too passive Euthanasia on 25th 2014 will be hearing a PIL filed by NGO common cause three judges bench of Supreme Court of India observed that the judgement in Aruna Shanbaug case was based on a wrong interpretation of the Constitution bench judgement in Gyan Kaur vs the State of Punjab the Court observed that the judgement in inconsistent in itself as though it were observed that at one can be allowed only by legislature yet it goes on guidelines on listening there for Court had referred the issue to the constitution bench which shall be here by a length of at least five judges.
Based on the inconsistent opinion rendered in Aruna Shanbaug case and also known as Supra case also considered the important question of law involved which need to be reflected in the light of social, legal, Medical, and Constitution perspective in our cognate opinion the question of law involved require careful consideration by the constitution bench of the code for the benefit of humanity as a whole other than that the five judges bench of Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether Article 21 of the Constitution include in the ambit of the right to die with dignity by means of executing a living will advance directive after that Court ruling.
Ethical issue in passive Euthanasia
One decision has been made that treatment is no longer serving the patient’s interest, it would be seen to follow that a quick and painless that would be preferred to a long Dying process with associated discomfort for the patient or his or her family. On passive Euthanasia it was generally understood that withdrawing and withholding treatment with the intent and Expectations that will occur sooner rather than later based on the belief that an area that is in the patient in both practices have the intention and usually.
The consequence that that will occur sooner rather than later is the later major reason for the distinction in based primary concern for future our patients, not the patients at hand. Although the US Supreme Court, in essence, legitimates passive Euthanasia in its 1990 Cruise on decision neither the state, not the Federal Government have sectioned at Asia as legally and ethically acceptable medical practice.
What do you mean by living will?
A living will is a written document by way of which a patient can give his explicit instructions in advance about the medical treatment to be administered there is a withdrawal of medical treatment with the deliberate intention to have done the death of terminally ill patients. That top courts recognized passive Euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaug case which we will discuss, in which it had permitted is the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position to make an informed decision that centre had opposed recognized of living will and set the consent for removal of artificial support system given by a patient may not be an informed one and without being aware of medical advancement it has cited the example of a various country in this swallowing creation of a living will vary by the patient.
Now the reality of passive Euthanasia.
According to the report a five judges bench of Apex course had it by Chief Justice of India Deepak Mishra and comprising Justice A.K Sikri, A.m. Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan issue guidelines in recognized of passive Euthanasia living will be made by the terminally ill patient.
These guidelines include who can execute the will and under what condition can medical board and loss passive Euthanasia the apex court further stated that it guideline and directors shall remain in force the legislation is brought to deal with an issue the Court that life and that are inseparable every movement our body Under whose change life is not disconnected from that dying is a part of a process of life in the case of Gian Kaur the apex court held that article 21 speak of life with dignity and only aspects of life which make it more dignified could be read into article thereby pointing out that the right to die was inconsistent with however letter in Aruna Ram Chandra Shanbagh versus Union of India the supreme Court in March 2011 has that passive Euthanasia could be given a load in case of exceptional circumstances and under strict monitoring of the apex court had been being a vegetative state. and we discussed above that the only case at home is only a viable option when all LifeCare intervention falls short of ensuring a better life for terminally ill patients or one who is in a vegetative state.
As we find and passive Euthanasia is a legal issue and have many arguments for and against, and all are you needing statements that need to be closely raised to make a Final Decision. Whether it would allow the human to die naturally in the most human option available after so many judgments and closely examine passive Euthanasia about the cases which we discuss it was found that passive Euthanasia is most definitely not an ethical act of the patient nearly required the basic human needs to maintain life along with essential medication and Operation also who want to end their life or hand in family member life are on the post-conventional stage where they are only considered their needs and wants and feel to consider the pain it will bring other moreover by promoting this viable practice option for the families who have Sick family member the Sick will be provided with ongoing care support and pain relief these care units will deliver usually correct option which will allow the patient to leave the world fit and sense of dignity and self-worth and comfort and appreciation from their loved one.