A Right For The Rich

Euthanasia verdict could lead to neglect of terminally ill poor patients.

Written by Faizan Mustafa | Published: March 14, 2018 1:05 am
SC allows passive euthanasia: Chronology of events that led the court recognise 'living will' The court has said that, at times, the interest of the state has to make way for the choices made by an individual. (Express Photo by Tashi Tobgyal)

You choose your spouse (like Hadiya), you choose your profession, you choose your religion, you choose your food and you choose your political representatives. But should how to die and when to die be a matter of choice? The Supreme Court (SC) has given a landmark judgment on the “right to die”. But it is not actually a clear recognition of such a “right”. The verdict is limited in the sense it recognises passive euthanasia. Chief Justice Dipak Misra rightly flagged the central issue: Does the law permit accelerating the process of dying, sans suffering, when life is on the path of inevitable decay? If so, at what stage and to what extent?

In the past 24 years, the SC has delivered four judgments on this subject. The March 9 verdict is the court’s latest intervention on the issue. In the P Ratinam (1994) case, a two-judge bench held that the right to life includes the right to die as every fundamental right has both positive and negative connotations: Just as the right to “free speech” includes the “right to silence”, the right to life includes the “right to die”. But the Ratinam verdict was overruled within two years by a two-judge bench in the Gian Kaur case (1996). Though the case did not specifically deal with euthanasia, it did recognise the importance of dying with dignity.

In 2011, a two-judge bench headed by Justice Markandey Katju validated passive euthanasia in the Aruna Shanbaug case. But in 2014, a three-judge bench noted the inconsistencies in Justice Katju’s verdict and made a reference to a constitution bench, leading to the latest verdict.

The latest judgment has taken human dignity, autonomy, and self-determination to such a high pedestal that the government should start worrying about the Aadhaar verdict as the same five judges are hearing that matter as well. The court has said that, at times, the interest of the state has to make way for the choices made by an individual.
The SC has ruled that Justice Katju’s judgment was based on a flawed reading of the Gian Kaur verdict. It reiterates what was held in the 1996 judgment on the technical issue of the need for legislation to legalise euthanasia. But the judges agreed with Justice Katju that autonomy means self-determination and the informed patient should have the right to decide the manner of his treatment. It has admitted that the right to live with dignity includes easing the process of dying for the terminally ill.

Justice A K Sikri’s observation that with Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act (2017) attempt to suicide is no more punishable, is controversial. The section merely creates a presumption that every person attempting suicide is under “severe stress” and shall not be tried and punished. If this presumption is rebutted, a trial may take place.
Euthanasia has been justified due to the high cost of medical treatment. But the harsh reality is euthanasia is a problem of the elite. The court overlooked the fact that poor people are never put on a life-support system. In fact, there is a possibility of poor people being declared “brain-dead” and their organs being made available to the rich. The detailed guidelines laid down by the court may meet the same fate as the guidelines under the Organ Transplantation Act.

Both P Ratinam as well as the latest judgment give unnecessary prominence to religious views on suicide with examples like Jal Samadhi by Lord Ram or Brahmins bringing their end by drowning. If we really want people to adopt a Uniform Civil Code, we need to liberate ourselves from religious discourse.

The Aruna Shanbaug verdict brought out the distinction between active and passive euthanasia. In the current verdict, too, Justice Chandrachud has accepted that the distinction between an “act” and “omission” gets blurred at times and in fact, an “omission” may amount to an “act”. He also pointed out that unlike active euthanasia, there is no intent to cause death (mens rea) in passive euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia is legal in many countries but active euthanasia is legal only in Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland and a few states in the US. The SC has now accepted Living Will as part of the right to live with dignity. However, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, recognised such a will.

The writer is vice chancellor, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

More From Faizan Mustafa
  1. Employ Ment
    Mar 14, 2018 at 9:26 pm
    🔴🆓बेरोजगारी हटाओ अभियान🆓🔴 ✔मोदी जी द्वारा चलाए गए डिजिटल इन्डिया से जुड़े और कमाए 15,000 - 20,000 रुपए महीना ✔अब कोई नही रहेगा बेरोज़गार और नही करेगा कोई बेरोज़गार आत्महत्या ✔क्योंकि अब आ गई है 21वीं सदी की सबसे बड़ी रोज़गार क्रांति ✔हमारा सपना पूरे भारत को ही नही पूरी दुनिया को डिजिटल इंडिया से जोड़ना ✔सबका साथ सबका विकास ➡शुरुवात कैसे करे 📲Champ'Cash-Digital`India App को प्ले स्टोर से इन्स्टल करे, और साइन अप करे, $1 डॉलर बोनस स्पौन्सर 🆔: 4⃣6⃣8⃣9⃣4⃣2⃣ 👉🏻चैलेंज को पूरा करे 👉🏻और इंकम करनी शुरू करे 👉🏻इसे जरूर नोट कर ले👉🏻 स्पौन्सर 🆔: 4⃣6⃣8⃣9⃣4⃣2⃣ . . . . . . . . Hvsggdushdghwjsjs
    1. suresh VRG
      Mar 14, 2018 at 6:47 pm
      Were the poor terminally ill patients being looked after well now ????
      1. M
        Mar 14, 2018 at 4:32 pm
        Professor Faizan Mustafa, Your opening para talks about choice. You say "Hadiya" exercised her choice. But I say, Akhila exercised her choice to become Hadiya and marry a Muslim man. But a Hadiya in Delhi exercised her choice of a man, not his religion - ANKIT SAXENA. Yet her choice was murdered. I say to you, AKHILAS can exercise their choices, but not HADIYAS. I say to you and this newspaper, IE, that because you only present half the picture, you are both PSEUDOS.
        1. Indian Singh
          Mar 14, 2018 at 3:59 pm
          Mustafa is blinded by the RELIGIOUS CONCEPT of ISLAM, CHRISTIANITY and JUDAISM that LIFE is GOD GIVEN and so HUMAN BEINGS have no right to DIE when they want. ............. These precisely is the reason for the resistance to BIRTH CONTROL too from these RELIGIONS. ................... But HINDUISM does not have such STUPID RULES. .... Lord Ram, considered the "MARYADA PURUSHOTTAM- EPITOME OF PERFECTION" took his own life by entering SARAYU at GUPTAR GHAT near Ayodhya. There exist a temple at that spot. JAINISM also has SANTARA which is individual OPTING TO GIVE UP LIFE. ..............Even JAPANESE and Ancient Romans believed DEATH by CHOICE as the ULTIMATE FREEDOM.
          1. Pradeep Chaturvedi
            Mar 14, 2018 at 12:22 pm
            Children of Rich pa s in Punjab, Bihar, U.P. w.b., Andhra will take full advantage of bumping of ill-pa s who are old senile to GRAB their property worth crores . India is not FIT to be in Mercy Killing stage. Indians are selfish greedy no value for human lives.
            1. Load More Comments