INTRODUCTION

Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. There are
two types of euthanasia voluntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia.

“The term Euthanasia normally implies an intentional termination of life by another at the
explicit request of the person who wishes to die. Euthanasia is generally defined as the act of
killing an incurably ill person out of concern and compassion for that person's suffering. It is
sometimes called mercy killing, but many advocates of euthanasia define mercy killing more
precisely as the ending of another person's life without his or her request. Euthanasia, on the
other hand, is usually separated into two categories: passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. In
many jurisdictions, active euthanasia can be considered murder or Manslaughter, whereas
passive euthanasia is accepted by professional medical societies, and by the law under certain
circumstances.”

Even in India whether it is a Voluntary Euthanasia, Involuntary Euthanasia or Non- Voluntary

Euthanasia whatever the case may be is not acceptable and is illegal here and it is a punishable
offence under Indian Penal Code except the passive Euthanasia.

PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO LIFE WITH DIGNITY

Right to life with dignity means a person is enjoying his life in a dignified way. It is something
which is not only a mere existence and not like the way which animal used to do. Now here lies
my question, that whether a person who is bed ridden and dependent on other for his every basic
needs e.g. last stage cancer patients in that cases whether he can be said that the person is
enjoying his life with dignity. A person, who even can’t eat with his own hand, can’t move from
his bed, can’t even stand or walk for washroom, in such cases we can’t say that the person is
living with dignity, even though his family members love him lots and taking proper care also
but still no body will like such kind of life.

Now when a person has spent most of his life without depending on other and suddenly he has to
depend on other for his every basic needs, in that case he loses his self-confident, respect,
independency etc which means a person is surviving without his dignity. We also know that
Right to life Under Article 21 also includes Right to Privacy. Now when a person is bed ridden
and he even can’t change his own clothes or wear, in that case where is the Right To Privacy?
This are certain instances which I feel that is the basic and important thing which every man do
in their day today life, and no one would like to depend on other for those basic needs.
 ACTIVE AND PASSIVE EUTHANASIA
The Honorable Supreme Court of India in, Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India had
made a clear distinction between Active and Passive Euthanasia. In Active euthanasia something
is done to end the life of patient e.g. injecting the patient with a lethal substance e.g. Sodium
Pentothal which causes the person to go in deep sleep in a few seconds and the person dies
painlessly in sleep, thus it amounts to killing a person by a positive act in order to end suffering
of a person in a state of terminal illness. It is considered to be a crime all over the world except
where permitted by legislation. In India too, active euthanasia is illegal and a crime under
Section 302 or 304 of the IPC. Physician assisted suicide is a crime under Section 306 IPC
(abetment to suicide).

Passive euthanasia in other hand, involves withholding of medical treatment or withholding life
support system for continuance of life e.g., withholding of antibiotic where without doing it, the
patient is likely to die or removing the heart–lung machine from a patient in coma. Passive
euthanasia is legal even without legislation provided certain conditions and safeguards are
maintained. The core point of distinction between active and passive euthanasia as noted by
Supreme Court is that in active euthanasia, something is done to end the patient’s life while in
passive euthanasia, something is not done that would have preserved the patient’s life. To quote
the words of learned Judge in Aruna‟s case, in passive euthanasia, “the doctors are not actively
killing anyone; they are simply not saving him”. The Court graphically said “while we usually
applaud someone who saves another person’s life, we do not normally condemn someone for
failing to do so”. The Supreme Court pointed out that according to the proponents of Euthanasia,
while we can debate whether active euthanasia should be legal, there cannot be any doubt about
passive euthanasia as “you cannot prosecute someone for failing to save a life”.

Again Passive euthanasia is further divided into voluntary and non-voluntary. Voluntary
euthanasia is where the consent is taken from the patient. And in non-voluntary euthanasia, the
consent is unavailable on account of the condition of the patient for example, when he is in
coma.

IS EUTHANASIA ETHICAL?
Supporters of Euthanasia know that there is a social, ethical and legal impact on society, patients,
and their families. Socrates, an ancient Greek philosopher chose to kill himself instead of being
exiled. The debate on Euthanasia rests on one question: Is Euthanasia ethical? The case stresses
on one main principle: mercy. There are many doctors or medical practitioners who think that
euthanasia is far more ethical to those who have suffered terribly in terminal illnesses.
There are many good reasons to accept euthanasia as the best option; it helps the patient, the
patient’s family and the family’s economy. It is a choice and alternative for a patient’s decision
which should be respected in order to alleviate suffering. There are many countries where
euthanasia is allowed in order to give the right to everybody to end their life and help in health
care cost containment. Patients in chronic prognosis do not have a choice to live. Since, right to
life also includes right to death, such patients rather than suffering with pain can request
euthanasia to cease the suffering.

EUTHANASIA WORLDWIDE

Euthanasia is a controversial issue in Australia. Although there are different laws in Australia
related to euthanasia, the legislations in most States consider it as illegal. At rst, it was legal by
Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995, and then it was overridden by the Australian government.
But an Australian Dr. Philip Nitschke helped three patients to achieve euthanasia (Alexander,
2010). In 2002 in Belgium the Belgian parliament passed legislation for euthanasia (Adams &
Nys, 2003)

Smets and his colleagues (2010) conducted a survey and found that most deaths by euthanasia
compared with other deaths were more often younger, male, cancer patients and more often died
in their homes. In almost all cases, unbearable physical suffering from uncontrolled pain, poor
wound healing, and poor social interactions were reported.

Canadian laws on living wills and passive euthanasia are a legal dilemma. It is illegal to ‘aid and
abet suicide’ under Section 241(b) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which states that this is an
indictable offence with a potential fourteen-year sentence if the appellant is found guilty
(Ministry of Attorney General, 2010). Also the British law has the same attitude toward Court
for brain death patients, but any actions whatsoever to end the life of a patient (active euthanasia)
is illegal (Magnier, 2011). The same case applies to Ireland. Active euthanasia is considered
illegal while passive euthanasia is legal. The Israeli and Jewish laws consider euthanasia as
illegal, but in some cases it can be accepted under the Israeli law (Butcher, 2005; Brody, 2009).

Active euthanasia is illegal in most of the United States. While voluntary, passive euthanasia is
considered legal; the patients have the right to reject medical treatment. Italy witnesses a social
and legal crisis about a woman who had a car accident and she has been unconscious since 1992

The Prime Minister Perleskony refused to endorse euthanasia for this woman claiming that
nobody has the right to end the life of any human being. The Supreme Court in Italy decided to
end this woman’s life by euthanasia and they stopped giving her food or drink. And so the
decision taken by the Italian government breaks the sentence taken by the Supreme Court
according to the Italian law. It is obviously noticed that in the countries which allow
euthanasia, such as Holland, there has been poor palliative and hospice care whereas in the
countries where euthanasia is forbidden, they have developed hospice care for the patients who
are suffering badly.

The issue of euthanasia has been raised in recent years in Islamic countries due to the debate
over specific cases in which specific patients or their families have asked health care
professionals, judges and religious people for a patient’s right to die with dignity in a number of
different ways (Bernard, 2000). In reality the issue did not enter Turkey, as an Islamic country
forb euthanasia strictly and considers such actions as a crime by the Criminal Law of Turkey
(Karadeni Yanikkerem, Pirincci, Erdem, Ese and Kitapcioglu, 2008). In Jordan euthanasia is
illegal even if inform consent is taken from the patient or his family, thus it is considered crime
against human life and the one who commits euthanasia whether actively or passively will be
punished by the law as being an intentional act.

CONCLUSION
Euthanasia has been a hot topic of debate for a while now. While some believe it is only humane
to enable a human being to end his suffering by means of assisted suicide, others believe that all
pain and suffering endured by human beings is God’s will, and should be accepted as it has been
given by God. In this heated debate religious, political, ethical, legal and personal views are also
included. Among all these, those who desperately want to end their lives because they simply
cannot go on in any way are the ones who suffer. Every individual or group has a different
viewpoint regarding euthanasia.

Euthanasia is considered a practical, emotional, and religious debate. There is also a deep and
broad history of euthanasia, which cannot be ignored when having a debate regarding this
subject. Based on this history, beliefs, and viewpoints, certain arguments for and against
euthanasia have been put forward.