Editorial: Simplify norms for euthanasia
India should take a cue from the United Kingdom, which recently passed a Bill allowing terminally ill adults to choose assisted dying under strict safeguards
The right to death with dignity is as important as the right to live. The recognition of an individual’s right to exercise bodily autonomy is a mark of an evolved society. No doubt, in a country like India, making laws on euthanasia or assisted dying is fraught with several complexities and ethical dilemmas. 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 passed a Bill allowing terminally ill adults to choose assisted dying under strict safeguards. 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. It is time for India to focus on making its existing rules more practical and humane, and also enact a comprehensive euthanasia law. In a landmark verdict in 2018, the Supreme Court allowed ‘Living Will’ and, later in 2023, simplified the procedures for withholding of life support to a terminally ill person.
‘Living Will’ 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. The apex court had 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 the terminally ill patients, the Centre is trying to abdicate its legislative responsibility and pass the buck to the judiciary. To make the guidelines on ‘Living Will’ more workable and less cumbersome, the top court has done away with the provision of getting a magistrate’s approval for withdrawing the life support to a terminally ill person. Along with putting in place a comprehensive euthanasia law, the Centre must take steps to expand palliative and hospice care, create hospital ethics committees, train medical professionals, and raise public awareness to ensure ethical, accessible, and compassionate end-of-life care. Many in India view euthanasia as morally wrong, believing in the sanctity of life as inviolable. The legal framework also lacks clear legislation to regulate euthanasia.
