The distinction between active and passive euthanasia raises important ethical and legal questions in healthcare. Examine its implications for patient autonomy, medical ethics, and

GS2 Judiciary
The distinction between active and passive euthanasia raises important ethical and legal questions in healthcare. Examine its implications for patient autonomy, medical ethics, and the need for a clear legislative framework in India.

Examine

  • 15 marks
  • 8 min
  • 250 words
  • Medium

The Hindu

Read article →

Introduction

  • Euthanasia refers to intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve suffering from a terminal or incurable illness.
  • The distinction between active euthanasia (deliberate act to cause death) and passive euthanasia (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment) raises significant ethical, legal, and medical debates in India.

Implications for Patient Autonomy

  • Right to Dignified Death: The Supreme Court in Common Cause (2018) recognised the right to die with dignity under Article 21.
  • Living Wills and Advance Directives: Patients can express their preference to refuse life-prolonging treatment in terminal conditions.
  • Balancing Autonomy and Protection: Safeguards are necessary to ensure that decisions are voluntary and free from coercion or misuse.

Implications for Medical Ethics

  • Principle of Beneficence: Doctors must act in the best interest of the patient, balancing relief from suffering with preservation of life.
  • Non-maleficence (“Do no harm”): Active euthanasia raises ethical concerns as it involves directly causing death.
  • Professional Responsibility: Physicians may face moral dilemmas when prolonging life leads to prolonged suffering.

Legal and Institutional Challenges

  • Passive Euthanasia Permitted: The Supreme Court has allowed withdrawal of life support under strict guidelines, but active euthanasia remains illegal under IPC provisions.
  • Procedural Complexity: Implementation of living wills and approval processes can be complicated in hospital settings.
  • Lack of Comprehensive Legislation: Absence of a clear statutory framework leads to uncertainty for doctors, patients, and families.

Need for a Clear Legislative Framework

  • Codification of Guidelines: Parliament can enact a law clarifying procedures, safeguards, and responsibilities.
  • Institutional Ethics Committees: Hospitals should establish transparent decision-making mechanisms.
  • Protection Against Misuse: Legal safeguards must protect vulnerable patients from coercion or financial pressures.

Conclusion

  • The debate on euthanasia reflects the need to balance compassion, patient autonomy, and ethical medical practice.
  • A clear and comprehensive legal framework can ensure dignity in end-of-life care while preventing misuse in India’s healthcare system.