Euthanasia- Submissions of Intervenor (Society for the Right to Die with Dignity)

From the days of Plato to the time of Sir Thomas More and other thinkers, painless and peaceful death has been advocated - Ancient wisdom of India taught people not to fear death but to aspire for deathlessness and conceive it as "Mahaprasthana".

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 215 OF 2005

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

Union of India and Another …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, CJI [for himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.]

I N D E X

S. No. Heading A. Prologue B. Contentions in the Writ Petition C. Stand in the counter affidavit and the applications for intervention D. Background of the Writ Petition D.1 P. Rathinam’s case – The question of unconstitutionality of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code D.2 Gian Kaur’s case – The question of unconstitutionality of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code D.3 The approach in Aruna Shanbaug qua Passive Euthanasia vis-à-vis India D.4 The Reference E. Our analysis of Gian Kaur F. Our analysis of Aruna Shanbaug qua legislation G. The Distinction between Active and Passive Euthanasia H. Euthanasia : International Position H.1 U.K. Decisions: H.1.1 Airedale Case H.1.2 Later Cases H.2 The Legal position in the United States H.3 Australian Jurisdiction H.4 Legal position in Canada H.5 Other Jurisdictions H.6 International considerations and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) I The 241st Report of The Law Commission of India on Passive Euthanasia J. Right to refuse treatment K. Passive Euthanasia in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution. K.1 Individual Dignity as a facet of Article 21 L Right of self-determination and individual autonomy M. Social morality, medical ethicality and State interest N. Submissions of the States O. Submissions of the Intervenor (Society for the Right to Die with Diginity) P. Advance Directive/Advance Care Directive/ Advance Medical Directive (a) Who can execute the Advance Directive and how (b) What should it contain? (c) How should it be recorded and preserved (d) When and by whom can it be given effect to (e) What if permission is refused by the Medical Board (f) Revocation or inapplicability of Advance Directive Q. Conclusions in seriatim

O. Submissions of Intervenor (Society for the Right to Die with Dignity):

175. Mr. Mohta, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor, that is, Society for the Right to Die with Dignity, has drawn our attention to certain articles and submitted that from the days of Plato to the time of Sir Thomas More and other thinkers, painless and peaceful death has been advocated. He would also submit that ancient wisdom of India taught people not to fear death but to aspire for deathlessness and conceive it as ―Mahaprasthana‖. It is his submission that in the modern State, the State interest should not over-weigh the individual interest in the sphere of a desire to die a peaceful death which basically conveys refusal of treatment when the condition of the individual suffering from a disease is irreversible. The freedom of choice in this sphere, as Mr. Mohta would put it, serves the cause of humanitarian approach which is not the process to put an end to life by taking a positive action but to allow a dying patient to die peaceably instead of prolonging the process of dying without purpose that creates a dent in his dignity.

176. The aforesaid argument, we have no hesitation to say, has force. It is so because it is in accord with the constitutional precept and fosters the cherished value of dignity of an individual. It saves a helpless person from uncalled for and unnecessary treatment when he is considered as merely a creature whose breath is felt or measured because of advanced medical technology. His ―being‖ exclusively rests on the mercy of the technology which can prolong the condition for some period. The said prolongation is definitely not in his interest. On the contrary, it tantamounts to destruction of his dignity which is the core value of life. In our considered opinion, in such a situation, an individual interest has to be given priority over the State interest.