Emphasising that the subject of euthanasia is fraught with questions of “morality, religion and medical science”, the Supreme Court has widened the debate beyond the Centre’s unyielding stand against it. At the heart of the matter is whether the fundamental right to life includes the right to die with dignity. It is to be hoped that the process begun by the court of soliciting wider opinion from states and UTs will shake public and political discourse out of its inhibition on the subject and address the tricky questions of ethics and procedure embedded not just in advanced healthcare, but also in the constant self-interrogation that a secular, modernising society must put itself to. So far, the courts have led the way in beginning debate on the issue, and even the landmark Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India judgment of the Supreme Court in March 2011 failed to interest Parliament to actively discuss its myriad implications. This fresh provocation should nudge the executive and legislature out of denial. Importantly, the signal is clear — if they abdicate their responsibility to respond in a progressive, humane manner, the court will deal with the subject nevertheless.
In Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India, the court had allowed the possibility of “passive” euthanasia under very strict conditions. Passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal of treatment or life support that could result in the patient’s death, in contrast to active euthanasia, which involves the administration of a drug to terminate the ailing person’s life. In any circumstance, the question of when — and how — an ailing individual or persons acting on her behalf can take the extraordinary step of ending life is a difficult one. After all, when may it be said that living is so intolerable that death would bring dignity? When may it be said that treatment, or plain resilience, holds no hope? After all, what is tolerable for one person may be insufferable for another. Who is to judge when a person has her wits about her to take a call? What and how must safeguards be framed?
To even pose these questions for medical and legal opinion is to demand that society at large acknowledges that taking a fresh look at the right to die is a necessary exercise in the progressive nuancing of the right to life.
