Answer

Introduction

Euthanasia refers to the intentional ending of life to relieve suffering. It raises moral, ethical, and legal questions about autonomy and dignity in death. In India, the Supreme Court in Aruna Shanbaug (2011) and Common Cause (2018) judgments recognized passive euthanasia under strict conditions, reading the right to die with dignity into Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the framework remains complex and inaccessible for many.

Body

Difference between Active and Passive Euthanasia

Key Concerns regarding Passive Euthanasia in India

• Procedural Complexity: Multiple approvals from medical boards, hospital committees, and sometimes courts make implementation extremely slow and difficult. Many hospitals still lack ethics committees to process requests.
• Risk of Misuse: There are fears that relatives may coerce patients or misuse the provision for financial or inheritance motives.
• Lack of Awareness: Both doctors and families are often unaware of living wills or legal procedures, leading to confusion and hesitancy.
• Absence of Statutory Law: The framework relies on Supreme Court guidelines instead of a comprehensive law, creating legal ambiguity.
• Cultural and Religious Sensitivity: Indian society largely views life as sacred, and euthanasia is stigmatized as morally wrong.
• Inadequate Palliative Care: Absence of accessible hospice and counselling services forces families to make decisions in distress.

Measures to Make the Framework More Humane and Efficient

• Enact Comprehensive Legislation: Codify Supreme Court guidelines into an “End-of-Life Care Act” defining clear procedures, rights, and safeguards.
• Create Digital Registry: Develop an Aadhaar-linked online portal for citizens to register, modify, or revoke living wills accessible to hospitals.
• Empower Hospital Ethics Committees: Mandate ethics boards in tertiary hospitals to decide cases swiftly without needing High Court approval.
• Decentralised Oversight: Establish district-level monitoring panels and digital dashboards for transparency and preventing misuse.
• Mandatory Safeguards: Introduce cooling-off periods, third-party verification, and conflict-of-interest checks to prevent coercion.
• Legal Protection for Doctors: Provide immunity to medical professionals following due legal process to encourage ethical compliance.
• Expand Palliative and Hospice Care: Integrate pain management, counselling, and community care into healthcare to ensure humane choices.
  Eg: Kerala’s community-based palliative care model can be replicated nationally.
  

Conclusion

Passive euthanasia upholds the constitutional promise of dignity in death. However, procedural rigidity and lack of awareness limit its humane application. A comprehensive law, digital infrastructure, ethical training, and palliative care expansion can make the system compassionate, efficient, and accessible ensuring that India’s dignity guarantee extends not just to life, but also to the end of life.

DOWNLOAD PDF