Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Euthanasia, derived from the Greek meaning “good death,” refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. The debate surrounding its legality and ethical implications has been ongoing globally, and in India, it gained prominence with the Aruna Shanbaug case (1994-2011). This case laid the groundwork for recognizing passive euthanasia under stringent conditions. Subsequently, the landmark Common Cause (2018) judgment by a Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court further refined the legal framework, introducing the concept of advance directives and living wills. The question at hand probes whether this latter judgment provides a conclusive resolution to the complex issue of euthanasia, considering the foundational principles established in the Aruna Shanbaug case and the broader socio-legal context.
The Aruna Shanbaug Case and its Principles
The Aruna Shanbaug case involved a nurse who was in a persistent vegetative state for 27 years after a sexual assault. The petition sought permission for passive euthanasia, which involves withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. While the Supreme Court initially denied permission, it laid down crucial principles:
- Right to Die with Dignity: Recognized as an intrinsic part of Article 21 (Right to Life).
- Passive Euthanasia Permissible: Under exceptional circumstances, with court approval.
- Safeguards Required: Strict guidelines were emphasized to prevent misuse, including medical board certification and family consent.
- Active Euthanasia remained illegal: The court explicitly stated that actively ending a life was unlawful.
The Common Cause (2018) Judgment: A Refined Framework
The Common Cause judgment significantly expanded upon the Aruna Shanbaug principles. Key aspects of the judgment include:
- Recognition of Advance Directives: Individuals can now execute ‘living wills’ specifying their wishes regarding medical treatment in the event they become incapable of making decisions.
- Detailed Guidelines for Advance Directives: The Court provided a comprehensive framework for creating, registering, and executing advance directives, ensuring authenticity and preventing coercion.
- Constitutional Validity Upheld: The Court affirmed the constitutional validity of advance directives, recognizing the individual’s autonomy in healthcare decisions.
- Role of Medical Boards: Medical boards were assigned the responsibility of verifying the authenticity of advance directives and ensuring compliance with the guidelines.
Is the Common Cause Judgment Conclusive? A Critical Assessment
While the Common Cause judgment represents a significant step forward in recognizing patient autonomy and providing a legal framework for passive euthanasia, it may not be entirely ‘conclusive’ for several reasons:
- Implementation Challenges: Effective implementation of advance directives requires widespread awareness, robust registration mechanisms, and trained medical professionals. These are still evolving.
- Potential for Misinterpretation: The nuanced guidelines surrounding advance directives can be subject to misinterpretation, leading to disputes and legal challenges.
- Ethical Concerns: Concerns remain regarding the potential for undue influence on vulnerable individuals and the slippery slope towards active euthanasia.
- Societal Acceptance: Despite legal recognition, societal acceptance of euthanasia remains limited, particularly in a country with strong cultural and religious beliefs.
- Ongoing Debate: The debate surrounding the definition of ‘terminal illness’ and ‘persistent vegetative state’ continues, requiring further clarification and refinement.
Furthermore, the Aruna Shanbaug case emphasized the court’s role as a final arbiter in each case, ensuring that all safeguards are met. The Common Cause judgment, while providing a framework, doesn’t entirely negate the need for judicial oversight in individual cases, especially where complexities arise.
| Feature | Aruna Shanbaug Case | Common Cause (2018) |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Passive Euthanasia with Court Approval | Advance Directives & Passive Euthanasia Framework |
| Advance Directives | Not Addressed | Recognized & Regulated |
| Judicial Oversight | Central & Mandatory | Still Important, but Framework Reduces Direct Intervention |
Conclusion
The Common Cause judgment undoubtedly builds upon and clarifies the principles established in the Aruna Shanbaug case, providing a more comprehensive legal framework for passive euthanasia and recognizing the right to die with dignity. However, given the inherent complexities, ethical concerns, and implementation challenges, it is premature to consider it entirely ‘conclusive.’ Continuous monitoring, refinement of guidelines, and increased public awareness are crucial to ensure that this legal framework is implemented effectively and ethically, respecting both individual autonomy and societal values. The Supreme Court’s role as a guardian of fundamental rights will likely remain vital in navigating the evolving landscape of euthanasia in India.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.