‘Euthanasia’ and Right to Life- Are both contradictory?

If Article 21 of our Constitution confers on every person the right to life and that too a dignified and joyful life as well as to live the life in any manner one wishes to, a natural question arises: does it also confer a right in a person not to live or for that matter, end his or her life if one chooses to?
If this is so, can the penal offences such as attempt to suicide (section-309 IPC) or abetment to suicide (Section-306 IPC) be held unconstitutional amounting to the violation of one’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Moreover, if right to life be construed as right to die in its ambit then, can euthanasia be allowed in this country?

In order that all these questions be satisfactorily answered, we need to fall back upon the Supreme Courts interpretation regarding the matters of Life and to terminate it.
Before do we cite Supreme Court’s take on this issue, it can very well be said that if right to life gives a right to a person to conduct his life as he thinks best which can extend to his bodily integrity, it is hard to digest why should a person be not given a right to end his life especially when he finds that there is nothing much left in his life or he has lost all the attributes of a dignified life. A similar analogy can also be given as if I have a right to speech then I also have a right to not to speak or to remain silent or not to listen and this is what the Courts have construed while interpreting Article 19 of the Constitution. Just like a person cannot be forced to listen, similarly, a person cannot be forced to live his life or enjoy his right to life to his detriment or disliking. In the same vein, it can be also be said that if the word life in Article 21 means a right to live with human dignity what if a person feels that his life has lost all its dignity. Shouldn’t he be given a right to end his life under such circumstances? Say for example a rape victim who certainly feels that her life has lost all its dignity.

Under this argument, it can be said that right to life certainly brings in its trail a right not to live a forced life. In such a case, euthanasia should certainly be allowed. However, if such a contention is accepted then it will have far reaching implications for the society especially, opening the flood gates of abetting suicides for ulterior motives.Hence, came the intervention of the Court to clear the fog surrounding this issue especially whether right to life means right to die or end life also.

According to the court, right to life is a natural right as embodied in Article 21 and it is natural death that can extinct this life and thus by no stretch of imagination, suicide or for that matter, active euthanasia be included within the ambit of this right as both amount to an unnatural termination or extinction of life and thus incompatible with the concept of right to life.
However, passive euthanasia can certainly be distinguished from both attempt to suicide and active euthanasia. Since passive euthanasia amounts to termination of life of a person who has slipped into a persistent vegetative state. In such a case, death due to the termination of natural life is not only certain but is also imminent. In short, the process of natural death of such a person has already commenced. With the help of euthanasia, we are merely reducing the period of suffering of such a person during the process of his natural death. Thus, this does not amount to extinguishing a naturally running life but only of accelerating the conclusion of the process of natural death which has already begun.

In short, through passive euthanasia we are actually enforcing the right of a dying man to die with dignity when his life is ebbing out and cannot be equated with the right to die an unnatural death suddenly extinguishing the natural life given by God as is the case of suicide or active euthanasia. In both these cases, a person is not a brain dead even though, he may be terminally ill and has no chances of survival. The request of such a person to end his life cannot be accepted unless he has turned into a vegetative state and the veteran doctors have certified the hopelessness of such a patient short of a miracle….
 

By: Pritam Sharma