Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research Indan Journal of Medical Research
  Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login  
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 1640       

   Table of Contents      
EDITORIAL
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 136  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 899-902

Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to die


Department of Psychiatry National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences (Deemed University) Bangalore 560 029, India

Date of Web Publication4-Feb-2013

Correspondence Address:
Suresh Bada Math
Department of Psychiatry National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences (Deemed University) Bangalore 560 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 23391785

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Math SB, Chaturvedi SK. Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to die. Indian J Med Res 2012;136:899-902

How to cite this URL:
Math SB, Chaturvedi SK. Euthanasia: Right to life vs right to die. Indian J Med Res [serial online] 2012 [cited 2019 Oct 21];136:899-902. Available from: http://www.ijmr.org.in/text.asp?2012/136/6/899/106798

The word euthanasia, originated in Greece means a good death [1] . Euthanasia encompasses various dimensions, from active (introducing something to cause death) to passive (withholding treatment or supportive measures); voluntary (consent) to involuntary (consent from guardian) and physician assisted (where physician's prescribe the medicine and patient or the third party administers the medication to cause death) [2],[3] . Request for premature ending of life has contributed to the debate about the role of such practices in contemporary health care. This debate cuts across complex and dynamic aspects such as, legal, ethical, human rights, health, religious, economic, spiritual, social and cultural aspects of the civilised society. Here we argue this complex issue from both the supporters and opponents' perspectives, and also attempts to present the plight of the sufferers and their caregivers. The objective is to discuss the subject of euthanasia from the medical and human rights perspective given the background of the recent Supreme Court judgement [3] in this context.

In India abetment of suicide and attempt to suicide are both criminal offences. In 1994, constitutional validity of Indian Penal Code Section (IPC Sec) 309 was challenged in the Supreme Court [4] . The Supreme Court declared that IPC Sec 309 is unconstitutional, under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the constitution in a landmark judgement [4] . In 1996, an interesting case of abetment of commission of suicide (IPC Sec 306) came to Supreme Court [5] . The accused were convicted in the trial court and later the conviction was upheld by the High Court. They appealed to the Supreme Court and contended that 'right to die' be included in Article 21 of the Constitution and any person abetting the commission of suicide by anyone is merely assisting in the enforcement of the fundamental right under Article 21; hence their punishment is violation of Article 21. This made the Supreme Court to rethink and to reconsider the decision of right to die. Immediately the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench of the Indian Supreme Court. The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die [5] .

Regarding suicide, the Supreme Court reconsidered its decision on suicide. Abetment of suicide (IPC Sec 306) and attempt to suicide (IPC Sec 309) are two distinct offences, hence Section 306 can survive independent of Section 309. It has also clearly stated that a person attempts suicide in a depression, and hence he needs help, rather than punishment. Therefore, the Supreme Court has recommended to Parliament to consider the feasibility of deleting Section 309 from the Indian Penal Code [3] .


   Arguments against euthanasia Top


Eliminating the invalid: Euthanasia opposers argue that if we embrace 'the right to death with dignity', people with incurable and debilitating illnesses will be disposed from our civilised society. The practice of palliative care counters this view, as palliative care would provide relief from distressing symptoms and pain, and support to the patient as well as the care giver. Palliative care is an active, compassionate and creative care for the dying [6] .

Constitution of India: 'Right to life' is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of 'right to life'. It is the duty of the State to protect life and the physician's duty to provide care and not to harm patients. If euthanasia is legalised, then there is a grave apprehension that the State may refuse to invest in health (working towards Right to life). Legalised euthanasia has led to a severe decline in the quality of care for terminally-ill patients in Holland [7] . Hence, in a welfare state there should not be any role of euthanasia in any form.

Symptom of mental illness: Attempts to suicide or completed suicide are commonly seen in patients suffering from depression [8] , schizophrenia [9] and substance users [10] . It is also documented in patients suffering from obsessive compulsive disorder [11] . Hence, it is essential to assess the mental status of the individual seeking for euthanasia. In classical teaching, attempt to suicide is a psychiatric emergency and it is considered as a desperate call for help or assistance. Several guidelines have been formulated for management of suicidal patients in psychiatry [12] . Hence, attempted suicide is considered as a sign of mental illness [13] .

Malafide intention: In the era of declining morality and justice, there is a possibility of misusing euthanasia by family members or relatives for inheriting the property of the patient. The Supreme Court has also raised this issue in the recent judgement [3] . 'Mercy killing' should not lead to 'killing mercy' in the hands of the noble medical professionals. Hence, to keep control over the medical professionals, the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 discusses euthanasia briefly in Chapter 6, Section 6.7 and it is in accordance with the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organ Act, 1994 [14] . There is an urgent need to protect patients and also medical practitioners caring the terminally ill patients from unnecessary lawsuit. Law commission had submitted a report (no-196) to the government on this issue [15] .

Emphasis on care: Earlier majority of them died before they reached the hospital but now it is converse. Now sciences had advanced to the extent, life can be prolonged but not to that extent of bringing back the dead one. This phenomenon has raised a complex situation. Earlier diseases outcome was discussed in terms of 'CURE' but in the contemporary world of diseases such as cancer, Aids, diabetes, hypertension and mental illness are debated in terms best 'CARE', since cure is distant. The principle is to add life to years rather than years to life with a good quality palliative care. The intention is to provide care when cure is not possible by low cost methods. The expectation of society is, 'cure' from the health professionals, but the role of medical professionals is to provide 'care'. Hence, euthanasia for no cure illness does not have a logical argument. Whenever, there is no cure, the society and medical professionals become frustrated and the fellow citizen take extreme measures such as suicide, euthanasia or substance use. In such situations, palliative and rehabilitative care comes to the rescue of the patient and the family. At times, doctors do suggest to the family members to have the patient discharged from the hospital wait for death to come, if the family or patient so desires. Various reasons are quoted for such decisions, such as poverty, non-availability of bed, futile intervention, resources can be utilised for other patients where cure is possible and unfortunately majority of our patient's family do accordingly. Many of the terminally ill patients prefer to die at home, with or without any proper terminal health care. The societal perception needs to be altered and also the medical professionals need to focus on care rather in addition to just cure. The motive for many euthanasia requests is unawareness of alternatives. Patients hear from their doctors that 'nothing can be done anymore'. However, when patients hear that a lot can be done through palliative care, that the symptoms can be controlled, now and in the future, many do not want euthanasia anymore [16] .

Commercialisation of health care: Passive euthanasia occurs in majority of the hospitals across the county, where poor patients and their family members refuse or withdraw treatment because of the huge cost involved in keeping them alive. If euthanasia is legalised, then commercial health sector will serve death sentence to many disabled and elderly citizens of India for meagre amount of money. This has been highlighted in the Supreme Court Judgement [3],[17] .

Research has revealed that many terminally ill patients requesting euthanasia, have major depression, and that the desire for death in terminal patients is correlated with the depression [18] . In Indian setting also, strong desire for death was reported by 3 of the 191 advanced cancer patients, and these had severe depression [19] . They need palliative and rehabilitative care. They want to be looked after by enthusiastic, compassionate and humanistic team of health professionals and the complete expenses need to be borne by the State so that 'Right to life' becomes a reality and succeeds before 'Right to death with dignity'. Palliative care actually provides death with dignity and a death considered good by the patient and the care givers.


   Counterargument of euthanasia supporters Top


Caregivers burden: 'Right-to-die' supporters argue that people who have an incurable, degenerative, disabling or debilitating condition should be allowed to die in dignity. This argument is further defended for those, who have chronic debilitating illness even though it is not terminal such as severe mental illness. Majority of such petitions are filed by the sufferers or family members or their caretakers. The caregiver's burden is huge and cuts across various domains such as financial, emotional, time, physical, mental and social. Hence, it is uncommon to hear requests from the family members of the person with psychiatric illness to give some poison either to patient or else to them. Coupled with the States inefficiency, apathy and no investment on health is mockery of the 'Right to life'.

Refusing care: Right to refuse medical treatment is well recognised in law, including medical treatment that sustains or prolongs life. For example, a patient suffering from blood cancer can refuse treatment or deny feeds through nasogastric tube. Recognition of right to refuse treatment gives a way for passive euthanasia. Many do argue that allowing medical termination of pregnancy before 16 wk is also a form of active involuntary euthanasia. This issue of mercy killing of deformed babies has already been in discussion in Holland [20] .

Right to die: Many patients in a persistent vegetative state or else in chronic illness, do not want to be a burden on their family members. Euthanasia can be considered as a way to upheld the 'Right to life' by honouring 'Right to die' with dignity.

Encouraging the organ transplantation: Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This in turn will help many patients with organ failure waiting for transplantation. Not only euthanasia gives 'Right to die' for the terminally ill, but also 'Right to life' for the organ needy patients.

Constitution of India reads 'right to life' is in positive direction of protecting life. Hence, there is an urgent need to fulfil this obligation of 'Right to life' by providing 'food, safe drinking water and health care'. On the contrary, the state does not own the responsibility of promoting, protecting and fulfilling the socio-economic rights such as right to food, right to water, right to education and right to health care, which are basic essential ingredients of right to life. Till date, most of the States has not done anything to support the terminally ill people by providing for hospice care.

If the State takes the responsibility of providing reasonable degree of health care, then majority of the euthanasia supporters will definitely reconsider their argument. We do endorse the Supreme Court Judgement that our contemporary society and public health system is not matured enough to handle this sensitive issue, hence it needs to be withheld. However, this issue needs to be re-examined again after few years depending upon the evolution of the society with regard to providing health care to the disabled and public health sector with regard to providing health care to poor people.

The Supreme Court judgement to withhold decision on this sensitive issue is a first step towards a new era of health care in terminally ill patients. The Judgment laid down is to preserve harmony within a society, when faced with a complex medical, social and legal dilemma. There is a need to enact a legislation to protect terminally ill patients and also medical practitioners caring for them as per the recommendation of Law Commission Report-196 [15] . There is also an urgent need to invest in our health care system, so that poor people suffering from ill health can access free health care. Investment in health care is not a charity; 'Right to Health' is bestowed under 'Right to Life' of our constitution.

 
   References Top

1.Lewy G. Assisted suicide in US and Europe. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc; 2011.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Dowbiggin I. A merciful end: The euthanasia movement in modern America. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc; 2003.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) no. 115 of 2009, Decided on 7 March, 2011. Availble from: http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wr1152009.pdf, accessed on August 16, 2011.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.P. Rathinam vs. Union of India, 1994(3) SCC 394.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 1996(2) SCC 648.   Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Saunders C. Terminal care in medical oncology. In: Begshawe KD, editor. Medical oncology. Oxford: Blackwell; 1975. p. 563-76.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Caldwell S. Now the Dutch turn against legalised mercy killing. Available from: http://www.hospicevolunteerassociation.org/HVANewsletter/0120_Vol6No1_2009Dec9_ Now The Dutch Turn Against Legalised MercyKilling.pdf, accessed on August 15, 2011.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Brådvik L, Mattisson C, Bogren M, Nettelbladt P. Long term suicide risk of depression in the Lundby cohort 1947-1997-severity and gender. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2008; 117 : 185-91.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.Campbell C, Fahy T. Suicide and schizophrenia. Psychiatry 2005; 4 : 65-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Griffin BA, Harris KM, McCaffrey DF, Morral AR. A prospective investigation of suicide ideation, attempts, and use of mental health service among adolescents in substance abuse treatment Psychol Addict Behav 2008; 22 : 524-32.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Alonso P. Suicide in patients treated for obsessive-compulsive disorder: A prospective follow-up study. J Affect Disorders 2010; 124 : 300-8.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Bongar BME. Suicide: Guidelines for assessment, management, and treatment: USA: Oxford University Press; 1992.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Lonnqvist J. Major psychiatric disorders in suicide and suicide attempters. The Oxford textbook of suicidology and suicide prevention. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 275-86.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.The Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. Available from: http://www.mciindia.org/RulesandRegulations/CodeofMedicalEthicsRegulations2002.aspx, accessed on August 19, 2011.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Law Commission report no.196 on medical treatment to terminally ill patients. Available from: http://lawcommissionofindia.nie.in/reports/rep196.pdf , accessed on August 19, 2011.   Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Zylicz Z, Finlay IG. Euthanasia and palliative care: reflections from The Netherlands and the UK. J R Soc Med 1999; 92 : 370-3.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Gursahani R. Life and death after Aruna Shanbaug. Indian J Med Ethics 2011; 8 : 68-9.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Chochinov HM, Wilson KG, Enns M. Desire for death in the terminally ill. Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152 : 1185-91.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Gandhi A, Chaturvedi SK, Chandra P. Desire for death in cancer patients - an Indian Study. Presented at the International Congress of the International Psycho Oncology Society, Copenhagen 2004.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Sheldon T. Dutch legal protection scheme for doctors involved in mercy killing of babies receives first report. BMJ 2009; 339.  Back to cited text no. 20
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Arguments agains...
    Counterargument ...
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3827    
    Printed61    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded900    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal