Editorial: Death with dignity
India must take a cue from the United Kingdom, which recently approved the Assisted Dying Bill, a move that marks a major turning point in the country’s approach to individual rights at the end of life
The right to death with dignity is no less important than the right to live. The recognition of an individual’s right to exercise bodily autonomy is a sign of maturity in any evolved society. No doubt, in a country like India, making laws on euthanasia or assisted dying is fraught with several complexities. It does not, however, mean that such attempts should not be made. India should, in fact, take a cue from the United Kingdom, which recently approved the Assisted Dying Bill, a move that marks a major turning point in the country’s approach to individual rights at the end of life. After a long public debate, the British House of Commons passed the new legislation, granting terminally ill adults the legal right to choose the timing and manner of their death. This is an issue that sits at the uneasy intersection of personal dignity, medical ethics, and societal responsibility. The final approval by the British Parliament suggests that society is slowly recognising the need to uphold dignity in death. At its core, the debate boils down to the sanctity of choice versus the sanctity of life. Advocates of the Bill made a strong case that individuals facing imminent death should have the right to decide how their final days unfold. To deny this is to risk trapping people in drawn-out, degrading circumstances where suffering outweighs hope. In India, thanks to a landmark verdict by the Supreme Court in 2018, ‘Living Will’ is allowed.
This empowers individuals of sound mind and health to leave explicit instructions in advance about the medical treatment to be administered when they become terminally ill and can declare in advance that their life must not be prolonged if they slide into a vegetative state. In a follow-up to the progressive move, the apex court, in January 2023, removed the condition that mandated a magistrate’s approval for withholding of life support to a terminally ill person. This was aimed at making the guidelines on ‘Living Will’ more workable and less cumbersome. The document will now be signed by the executor of the ‘Living Will’ in the presence of two attesting witnesses, preferably independent, and attested before a notary or Gazetted Officer. In fact, the apex court pulled up the Centre for failing to enact a law on passive euthanasia in accordance with its 2018 judgement upholding the right to death with dignity. By remaining silent on such a crucial issue concerning terminally ill patients, the Centre is trying to abdicate its legislative responsibility and passing the buck on the judiciary. The 2018 verdict, allowing passive euthanasia, recognised the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right in the spirit of Article 21.
