ABSTRACT

EUTHANASIA is a dubious subject that has recently captured the interest of media, public, government officials, and the medical profession. Although active euthanasia is unlawful in many parts of the world, except for Switzerland and the Netherlands, there is pressure from certain government officials and patient support groups to legalize this practice. Individuals contend that individuals don’t focus on patients’ desires, particularly when they are experiencing critically ill, crippling, and non-responding medical conditions. This will undoubtedly change with the new laws, which may be executed if euthanasia is legitimized. The debate on legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide has a broad range of participants including physicians, scholars in ethics and health law, politicians, and the general public. This issue is also getting pertinent to psychiatrists as they have to deal with mental capacity issues constantly. Those who wish not to avail themselves have nothing to fear, but there is no proper reason that others should be prevented from accessing legally-protected euthanasia. Current scientific and legal materials indicate that this issue is a complex and contentious one that crosses numerous perspectives and theoretical orientations. We define euthanasia, suicide, and terms that are associated with the concept, reveal common misconceptions during this regard and expose euphemisms that, regrettably, often serve to confuse and deceive. Here we argue this complex issue from both the supporters and opponents’ perspectives. The philosophical suppositions managing our points of view are mentioned. The objective is to debate the topic of euthanasia from the medical and human rights perspective.

1. INTRODUCTION

Euthanasia also is known as mercy killing or ending a life to relieve someone from their unbearable pain and suffering and incurable disease with the means of suspension of any medical treatment or any lethal injection. The history of this was dated back in the centuries but was not legal until 1906 when the first bill to legalize euthanasia was conducted in America. After that many legislatures turned down the bill, in 1994 Oregon passed the bill and made it legal. Their law sets thepremise of “Death with the Dignity Act” that allows the doctor to prescribe a lethal drug to the patient. Todate, theNetherlands, Belgium, and the other 7 states of the USA have made it legal.

 There have been many arguments aboutwhether or not to legalize euthanasia. Those who oppose using the argument that if it is legalized there can be many risks, people may misuse it, or those who are terminally ill who feel as the burden will be obligated to use it even if they don’t want to die. Those who are in favor of legalizing use the argument of right to die or alternative methods like palliative care.  This research paper focuses more on the main arguments on euthanasia all over the world or not.

1. MEANING

Assisted suicide is “Intentionally helping a person commit suicide by providing drugs for self-administration, at that person’s voluntary and competent request.” A doctor assists a patient to commit suicide if they request it[1].

The term euthanasia means “good death”. Euthanasia is the act of intentionally ending a life to relieve suffering. A doctor is allowed by law to end a person’s life by a painless means, as long as the patient and their family agree.

It can be divided into 3 types:

• Voluntary Euthanasia: When killing is directed with consent. Willful killing is right now lawful in Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and the states of Oregon and Washington in the U.S.
• Non- Voluntary Euthanasia: When killing is directed on an individual who can’t consent to it because of their present health condition. In this situation, the choice is made by another suitable individual, on behalf of the patient, because of their quality of life and suffering.
• Involuntary Euthanasia: When euthanasia is performed on an individual who might have the option to give informed consent, however, doesn’t, either because they do not want to die, or because they were not asked. This is called murder, as it’s often against the patients’ will.

There are two procedural classifications of euthanasia:

• Passive euthanasia is when life-continuing medications are withheld. The definitions are not exact. If a doctor prescribes increasing doses of strong painkilling medications, such as opioids, this may eventually be toxic for the patient. Some may argue that this is passive euthanasia. Others, however, would say this is not euthanasia, because there is no intention to take life.
• Active euthanasiais the point at which somebody utilizes deadly substances or powers to take a patient’s life, regardless of whether by the patient or another person. Active euthanasia is more controversial, and it is more likely to involve religious, moral, ethical, and compassionate arguments.

The difference between assisted suicide and euthanasia is:

It recommends a distinction within the level of contribution and conduct. Assisted suicide involves making deadly methods accessible to the patient to be utilized during a period of the patient’s choosing. Against this, voluntary active euthanasia involves the doctor playing an active role in doing the patient’s request, and for the foremost part includes intravenous delivery of the lethal substance. The excellence also lies in who administers the lethal dose; in euthanasia, that’s finished by employing a medical doctor or by way of a third person whereas, in physician suicide, this is often achieved with the help of the patient himself.

• WAYS OF CONDUCTING EUTHANASIA
• In the first kind, the patient requests that life-saving treatment currently in progress be discontinued. The cases here are those in which the doctor who accedes does not merely cease to supply further drugs or other things that the patient needs: rather she positively intervenes—she shuts off, or removes the patient from, the equipment that is keeping him alive. These are disconnecting cases.
• In the second kind of case, the patient requests that life-saving treatment not be undertaken—as, for example, where he requests that he not be placed on life-saving equipment or that he not be subjected to aggressive efforts at resuscitation in case of cardiac arrest. These are non-connecting cases.
• In the third kind of case, one in which acceding to the patient’s request is not legally permitted in most states, but in which—on their view—it should be. In this third kind of case, the patient requests a lethal drug that he can take at a time of his choosing. These are drug-providing cases.
• In this fourth kind, the patient is not capable of taking the lethal drug himself, and what he requests is that the doctors inject it. These are drug-injecting cases. In these cases, the doctor who accedes does not provide the patient with the means of committing suicide; the patient does not kill himself, it is instead the doctor who kills the patient.[2]

1. LAWS RELATED TO EUTHANASIA

The 1997 US Supreme Court ruling regarding physician-assisted suicide is often misrepresented or misunderstood. The question before the court was specific: Are state laws that criminalize physician-assisted suicide unconstitutional? The high court ruled that such laws were not unconstitutional. That ruling, however, did not make physician-assisted suicide a crime throughout the land. It declared, rather, that legalizing or criminalizing euthanasia was a matter of states’ rights; that is, a matter for each state to decide for itself.[3]

• Oregon: Three years before this ruling, Oregon, a state in the USA in 1994, became the first in the world to legalize the EUTHANASIA by a margin of 51% and set the premise of Death with dignity act. This act says that it allows certain adult patients to request a prescribed medication to end their life. To be eligible for this, the patient should be a resident of that state enacting death with dignity, the patient must be terminally ill who can die within 6 months, should be of a sound mind, and be at least 18 years of age. After the first approval of Oregon’s death with dignity, 7 mores states also approved the same policies.
• Netherlands: After that, in April 2002, Netherland also legalizes euthanasia and becomes the first country to do so. But it imposes with conditions: The patient’s illness must be incurable and suffering unbearable pain and the patient must be in the capacity to take the decision.
• Belgium: In 2002 Belgium also passed the law and became the second country to do so. Their laws say that doctor can help a patient to end their life if they are suffering unbearable pain. Belgium has also become the first country to legalize euthanasia for children. There is no age limit of minors seeking a lethal injection, but must be in conscious mind while taking the decision and also need the assent of their parents, terminally ill and close to death and suffering beyond the medical help.
• India: On 9 March 2018, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasiathrough the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state.  This decision was made in the case of Aruna Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent vegetative state until she died in 2015.
• The Supreme Court indicated two conditions to be eligible under this law:
  • The ventilator of those patients with the brain-dead can be switched off.
  • The Supreme Court laid down the guidelines that passive euthanasia means withdrawing of treatment or food that helps patients to live. The same judgment also scraps down section 309 of the Indian penal code which penalizes those who survive after attempting suicide.

Active euthanasia that means prescribing a lethal drug to end life is still illegal in India. According to Penal Code 1860, active euthanasia is an offense under Section 302 (punishment for murder) or at least under Section 304 (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

Landmark judgments:

Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug case (2011): In this case, a writ petition was filed for euthanasia. On November 1973 a nurse at King Edward Memorial hospital, Mumbai was sexually assaulted by a ward boy. She was found next morning in the pool of blood, the chain was tied round her neck which cut off the supply of oxygen to her brain for over 8 hours. It was alleged that after this mishap Aruna Shanbaug was in persistent vegetative state and virtually dead and has no state of awareness. On 24 January 2011 after Shanbaug has been in that state for 37 year, the Supreme Court responded to the plea of euthanasia which was filed by a journalist.

On 7^th March 2011, the Supreme Court in a landmark judgment issued the guidelines for legalizing the passive euthanasia. The guidelines for passive euthanasia were to withdraw the treatment, nutrition or water established that the decision to withdraw the life support must be done by parents, spouse relatives or by a next friend. The decision also required the court approval. But in this   judgment the journalist who filed the petition was not recognized as a next friend of Aruna, thus the court rejected the petition.

Common Cause (A regd. Society) vs. Union of India (2018):  In 2005, a NGO filed a PIL in the Supreme Court under article 32 of the Indian Constitution to legalize living will and passive euthanasia. The petition was that the right to live with dignity should include right to have dignified death.

The Supreme Court in this case held that an individual has the right to die with dignity as a part of right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The ruling permits the removal of the life support system for terminally ill patients or those in comas.[4] The court further recognized the need for creating the living will.

We think that India is still not ready to allow euthanasia. Though the Supreme Court has recognized the right to die as a fundamental right but with the religious belief against premature death, the right to life weighs more than the right to die. As said by M.C. Mishra former director of the All India Institute of Medical Science, that if legalized, there will be no limits to its abuse in India. In the case where a person is terminally ill and is not able to return to normal and is a burden to his family, their active euthanasia can be debated. But where a patient is mentally alert and physically disabled, euthanasia in that form should not be legalized as there a probability of misuse if it because of property or money or because of animosity among the family members.

1. ARGUMENTS ON EUTHANASIA

LIFE VERSUS FREEDOM

In a 1996 US Supreme Court case regarding assisted suicide, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) said that the right of a mentally competent person facing a terminal illness to choose “a timely and dignified death”, rather than suffer excruciating pain in their final days, should be seen as “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”[5].

Intellectually capable individuals could be at freedom to require their own lives, yet there’s no perceived right to SUICIDE that has the cooperation of others. Permitting patients to end their suffering isn’t only morally justified yet additionally fundamental to maintaining the right to private and bodily autonomy, advocates argue. People should have the right to regulate their own body and life (as long as they are doing not abuse the other person’s rights), and therefore the state shouldn’t create laws that prevent citizens from having the ability to decide on when and the way they die. They say that as they advocate a voluntary system, they need not fear being killed without their consent. This assumption is morally wrong, dangerous, and certain to add to the suffering of vulnerable patients, instead of alleviating it.

But there come three major problems with this autonomy. Firstly, we are increasingly almost like blocks in a house, where we’ve close connections and duties to those around us, loved ones, and that we are related to society generally. Our self-sufficiency is adjusted by our duties. So people need to take care of them before they make any decision associated with ending their lives

Secondly, considering suicide to be a solution for certain sicknesses can just undermine the power of doctors and society to figure out the way to show genuine sympathy and address patients’ pain and other issues. In states that have legalized suicide, most patients demand the lethal medications not due to pain (or even fear of future pain), yet due to concerns like ‘loss of dignity’ and ‘turning into a burden on others’ because individuals within the late phase of terminal illness regularly find yourself ill and dependent on nurses and members of the family for simple tasks, for instance, eating, washing and getting to the bathroom, which may be degrading.

Thirdly, nothing within the law says we have got the right to pursue death, nothing.[6].The right to life is a natural right embodied in Article 21 but suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore, incompatible and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’.

Only a little minority of individuals with a fatal illness seek a doctor’s medicine for a lethal medication. Numerous individuals who are dying prefer to “bear with” their pain. Some look for hospice care and—in instances of utmost, obstinate pain—merit palliative sedation. Some pick wilful stopping of eating and drinking (VSED), which, as indicated by an examination including hospice nurses, brings about a more satisfactory death than seen with euthanasia.

Right to choose

The English legal system says that a person has a right to choose whether or not they can end their life through euthanasia. The human being is independent, as an adult, and has a right to choose or to take a decision for themselves. So if euthanasia is legalized, a terminally ill patient who has no cure for his illness and is suffering from can choose to end their life peacefully either in a hospital or at home.

It comes with a question that should have the option to choose physician-assisted suicide with dying? A physician’s view presents evidence supporting his opinion that mentally competent, terminally ill patients suffering a great deal of pain should be able to end their lives with the assistance of a doctor.[7]

WHAT SHOULD DOCTORS CONSIDER: MEDICAL ETHICS OR LAW?

Ethics are based on morals and principles of right and wrong. It regulates human behavior and helps an individual to live a good life without any regret according to oneself, whereas law is a set of rules that are set by the government. It governs the action and behavior of the people and is enforced, by imposing penalties.

Physician-assisted suicide or end of life is that area which is surrounded by many ethical issues. According to the Code of medical ethics 5.8, permitting the physician to engage in ending a life of patients with their choice would ultimately cause more harm than causing good.  Asking doctors, nurses, or any other health professional to carry out acts of euthanasia or assist in suicide would be fatally damaging the doctor-patient relationship. It will be incompatible with the role of the healer as the doctor are the one who saves lives not taking lives and would be difficult to control and pose serious societal risks. In turn, people could become distrustful of their doctor’s efforts and intentions, thinking their doctor would rather ‘kill them off’ than take responsibility for a complex and demanding case A doctor instead of engaging himself in physician-assisted suicide, he should not leave a patient when the cure is impossible or must provide comfort and care and adequate pain control.

Deontological approach:

The theory says that instead of focusing on what you can do, one should focus on what ought to be done. This theory focuses more on individual rights. It raises three questions, is it right? What else could I have done for different results? Was my action necessary?

Immanuel Kant is a deontological thinker and takes actions as right or wrong, just or unjust without looking at the consequences of those actions. So, taking Kant’s ethical theory, he favors euthanasia as a person must keep on living even if life becomes very difficult because to live a happy life is not a big deal but to live a burdened life and not to commit suicide thinking that a person must keep on living bestowed upon him by GOD, has a high moral worth.[8]

According to the author, J.M. Dieterile, there are two arguments against Euthanasia:

(1) The Hippocratic Oath of doctors: that says, the physician is bound to save lives not to take. The main premise of this argument will be that a physician should never intend to kill a patient but to heal or cure the patient. So if physician-assisted suicide is legal and if physician aid a patient, a person who wishes to die due to his illness than a physician doesn’t intend to kill him but to heal the patient and to respect their wishes because sometimes, to prolong death in some cases is not helpful, it can be counterproductive. But instead of assisting in dying, compassionate and supportive counselling is called for.

 (2)The inherent wrongness of killing: killing an innocent person is wrong but when a physician provides a patient a lethal drug then it cannot be termed as killing. Because in these cases the patient who is terminally ill wants to die, the person had chosen to die. No harm is caused by a physician to a patient. If no harm is caused than physicians indirectly killing people who consented to die is no wrong.

Can doctors be considered as gods?:

“Those who are occupied in the restoration of health to others, by the joint exertion of skill and humanity, are above all the great of the earth. They even partake of divinity, since to preserve and renew is almost as noble as to create.”—Voltaire.

In India, there is an old saying that doctors are second to god on this earth. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, however, describes a God complex as a narcissistic personality disorder.[9]

Indian mythology is concerned it’s only the god who can create or destroy or maybe stop from destruction (in this case birth and death). Since being a doctor is such an excellent profession where you handle birth and stop people from death, doctors are often compared with God. In early times, doctors who could save lives with their knowledge and collaboration with the environment gave them a godly personality. God Dhanvantari who is the God of Ayurveda, the traditional medicinal system of India.

Doctors are treated with the utmost respect and value their advice quite that of anybody else. And most of the people, though illiterate or poor, blindly trust their doctor with their own lives moreover that of their blood relatives. They place incredible confidence in doctors in light of the very fact that the doctor has the pharmaceutical and prognostic fortitude to form an informed and objective decision.

Humans are non-existent and needy which declines this argument. We see many private hospitals that request money before any critical surgery. Unfair practices like black marketing of organs, usage of unsterilized instruments to spread the virus, providing dangerous toxins to several patients under influences, etc. are being practiced in most cases.

If doctors start to take themselves as God they might become entitled to take anybody’s life without justification. That might create a situation of chaos as they might start doing things as per their wishes. But doctors need to follow all the principles and regulations that are imposed on them by the state.

The esteemed position of doctors could without much of a stretch be abused if euthanasia somehow happened to become authorized. The choice of committing euthanasia is made of the details provided by the doctors but sometimes these details might not even be founded: diagnoses are often mistaken and new treatment developed which the doctor doesn’t realize. But in countries where euthanasia is currently legal, like Switzerland and the Netherlands, strict legal guidelines are in place to make sure that the method doesn’t include such problems.

SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT

Edmund Pelligrino, a professor emeritus of medicine and medical ethics at Washington DC-based Georgetown University, says that “in a society as obsessed with the costs of healthcare and the principle of utility, the dangers of the slippery slope are far from fantasy”. “If terminating life is a benefit, the reasoning goes, why should euthanasia be limited only to those who can give consent? Why need we ask for consent?”[10]

It depends on the likelihood that when a healthcare service, and by extension the government, starts killing its residents, a line is crossed that ought to have not been crossed and a dangerous precedent has been set. The fear is that a general public that allows euthanasia will at that time progressively change its attitudes to incorporate non-voluntary and then involuntary.

Additionally, legalized voluntary euthanasia could at the end of the day cause a large scope of unexpected outcomes, for instance, the accompanying:

1. Legalizing euthanasia may discourage research into palliative treatments and possibly cures for people with a terminal illness.
2. Doctors may once in a while be gravely involved about a patient’s diagnosis and outlook and therefore the patient may pick euthanasia as they have been wrongly told they need a terminal condition.
3. It could lead on to danger whether by a proper extension of categories of persons to whom euthanasia is allowed or by loose application of criteria by the personnel involved within the administration of euthanasia
4. Acknowledgment of suicide as an option for those requiring costly consideration wouldn’t just offer health care providers a motivator to form that choice appear appealing it might likewise downgrade all different alternatives to the status of strictly private decisions by the person. As life-extending care of the at terminally ill is observed as strictly elective, society may become less ready to appropriating funds for such care and economic pressures to settle on death will go accordingly
5. In such cases, the right is exercised on the patient’s behalf by others, who seek either to interpret what the patient’s wishes might have been or to serve his or her best interests. Once suicide is established as a fundamental right, courts will almost certainly find that it’s unjust to not extend this right to those unable to express their wishes.[11]

IS DEATH A BAD THING?

Many people think that death is a bad thing. But of course, there can be an exception for it, like for those people who are terminally ill, living with pain and suffering and there is no way to improve their situation and the only way they think of relieving the pain is to escape from it. In which death helps them to escape from the pain they are suffering fora long time. Death can be bad because of many reasons for say life has values, death is what God gives us and we should not interfere with it, and it violates the autonomy drastically.[12]

It raises two arguments:

(1) People usually don’t want to die as they have many things to do in their lives, which they have not done yet or experienced yet. But in the case where a person is terminally ill and has no cure for it, wishes to die

(2) It violates autonomy, autonomy concerns personal self-governance, being in control of oneself, and choosing one’s way[13]. If autonomy is valuable, euthanasia should be permissible.[14] In this era support for patient’s autonomy is increasing with a touch of public opinion. Doctors are to ensure good lives not to ensure the life of all at every cost. So in the case where patients want to die, disapprove of these arguments.

People, who request euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide must have a bad life, suffering from chronic disease might think that it is better to die rather than continuing their lives that is not worth living.

ADEQUATE PALLIATIVE CARE AS AN ALTERNATIVE OF EUTHANASIA

Broeckaert defines palliative sedation as “ the intentional administrative of sedative drugs and combination required to reduce the consciousness of a terminal patient as much as necessary to adequately relieve one or more refractory symptoms.”  Palliative care provides an alternative to relieve the pain the patients are suffering in most of the case. In the developing era, palliative care is also developing; they offer many interventions to provide the treatment of the pain and other symptoms. But people still prefer the option of euthanasia rather than palliative care as there can be an absence of the improvement of the illness or the proper sedation are not there to relive their pain, but moreover, the pain caused by that illness is the main reason to request for assisted suicide.  A report of assisted suicide in the Netherlands in 2005 was shown that 20% of all the cases have alternative care such as increasing pain medication but many of the people refused the alternative care and requested euthanasia. Palliative care is best in the course of a cancer patient’s treatment as “prolonged stressors associated with serious illness diminish immune reserve and… provide by palliative care might disrupt the pathway and lead to an improved. The European Association for palliative care is concern that if there is the legalization of euthanasia or physicians assisted suicide it may lead to underdeveloped or devaluation in palliative care[15]. Therefore they have been many contributions to improve the situation of palliative care.

DOES RELIGIONS ALLOW SUICIDE?

India may be a solid case of varied differed societies, customs, and religions which all have safeguarded their identities and blended with the historic Indian philosophies and rituals. A discussion on euthanasia at an expert and open level will confront various complexities, for instance, the virtues of people, how religion and culture will play within the minds of people, no matter whether the force of religiosity will overpower kind of religion.

People are the holy creation of God, so human life is by extension holy. This suggests there are limits to what people can do with their life, as an example, finishing it. Only God needs to pick when a person’s life ends, so submitting an act of euthanasia or aiding suicide is acting against the will of God and is evil.

• Hinduism: According to Hinduism, if a person commits suicide, he or she neither goes to hell nor heaven but remains in the earth as a bad spirit and wanders until he or she completes the allotted lifespan. The person then goes to hell only to return on earth to complete the left “karma.”

Committing suicide is considered a violation of the code of Ahimsa (non-violence) and is therefore as sinful as committing murder. “For him who commits suicide becomes Abhisasta (man accused of mortal sin), his blood relations (sapinda) shall not perform the funeral rites.”

Shiskhapatri – The teachings of Swaminarayan have 212 Sanskritverses and talks about do’s and don’ts and it says not to commit suicide even in the holy place.

• Islam:According to Prof Yusuf Al-Qardhawi (Islamic scholar), “Euthanasia or mercy killing is forbidden in Islam for it encompasses a positive role on the part of the physician to end the life of the patient and hasten his death via lethal injection, electric shock, a sharp weapon or any other way. This is an act of killing, and, killing is a major sin and thus forbidden in Islam.”

“Do not kill yourselves, for verily Allah has been to you most merciful.” “…and (Allah) is the one who gave you life, then shall He ordain you to die, then shall He give you, your life again, truly mankind is ungrateful.” According to these Quranic verses, most Muslims believe that suicide, attempted suicide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia are all prohibited in Islam.

• Christianity: According to the theology of the Catholic Church, death by suicide is considered a grave or serious sin, and this belief is based on another belief that life is God’s property and a gift to this world and nobody else has the right to destroy it. But the Catechism of Catholic Church says, “We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. Byways knew to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.”

The view of scripture on the topic is that once a person comes to faith in Jesus Christ, every sin they will ever commit is paid for, and it is also stated that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” The Christians believe suicide to be a sin, but do not believe it is impossible to find salvation.

• Sikhism: The Sikhs believe that the Gurus rejected suicide as nobody has the right to give or take life. Birth and death are the mercy of the creator and thus the belief that there is no place for mercy killing or EUTHANASIA in Sikhism. The Gurus tackled the problem of sickness and suffering by providing medical relief and alleviation of pain.
• Buddhism: For Buddhists, as the first precept is to refrain from the destruction of life, including oneself, suicide is seen as a negative form of action. Buddhism in its various forms affirms that while suicide as self-sacrifice may be appropriate for the person who is an Arhat (spiritual practitioner who has realized certain high stages of attainment), one who has attained enlightenment; it is still very much the exception to the rule.

“Intentionally bringing about the untimely death of a human being, even if it is still a fetus, is (an offense of Defeat.).”

“It is noteworthy that even praising death or assisting death out of compassion, that is, euthanasia is still considered a Defeat for a bhikku” (Bhikku – a Buddhist monk or a layperson who has taken a vow to lead a life of virtue, a Buddhist religious devotee).

• Jainism: Jainism is one religion that permits suicide with restrictions. Jain Munis and other elderly people have been known to starve themselves to death, although there is no record of application of any other violent means due to heavy insistence on non-violence.

Jain scriptures talk about ending a life in a dignified way in Sutra krtraanga and say “When a wise man, in whatever way, comes to know that the apportioned space of his life draws towards its end, he should in the meantime quickly learn the method of dying a religious death.” The scriptures of Sutra krtraanga identifies a holy fast unto death, which through inaction rids the soul of negative karma and brings about death with dignity and dispassion (sallekhanaa), but within the Jain religion and traditions, this method of ending life is not regarded as an act of suicide.

• Judaism: One who is in a dying condition is regarded as a living person in all respects. One may not close the eyes of a dying person … Rabbi Meir would say: “It is to be compared to a sputtering candle which is extinguished as soon a person touches it-so too, whoever closes the eyes of a dying person is compared to have taken the soul.

Assisting and requesting suicide assistance are forbidden among Jews. Leviticus 19:14 says, “Do not put a stumbling block before the blind,” and the Rabbis interpreted that verse to prohibit any type of physical, theological, economic, or moral stumbling block, and assisting suicide is one such stumbling block.[16]

1. STATISTICS ON EUTHANASIA

According to the survey done byus, we asked about them to give their views on the term euthanasia. Many of their views on terms were affirmative. They think that euthanasia is a good way to die if the circumstances or condition of the person as such. It would help severely ailing patients whose life system is under grave threat. Euthanasia is a question of showing that allowing people to have a good death, at a time of their choosing, will make them happier than the pain from their illness, the loss of dignity, and the distress of anticipating a slow, painful death. But some of them were negative. Some of them think that Euthanasia is equal to murdering a person. A Doctor should put in his best efforts to save a patient’s life and not give up. The main of disapproving it is the Hippocratic Oath of the doctor that says that doctors are the one who saves life not to take life.

The student was asked that their views that euthanasia can be regarded as? They were given five options to choose and to give the reason why they chose them.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YHzP0yRai8Q3Kdf0viYueMcjEY8EpI7rxCrRheRvJec/edit#responses

1. 9% chose a legal issue and gave the reason that legalizing euthanasia will have a large impact on article 21 of the Indian Constitution and compare euthanasia as murder. Both murder and euthanasia is against the law and has a huge impact on society as they shake society’s long-standing tradition, values, and virtues.
2. 4% chose the ethical and moral and gave the reason that doctors should not take the life or help any patient in ending their lives as they have sworn the Hippocratic Oath that says the doctor is the one who saves live not to take. If euthanasia is legalized it would be regarded as a highly immoral, unethical, and illegal act.
3. 6% chose an individual issue and gave the reason that patient and close relatives decide upon the decision to opt for euthanasia or not and how death affects the family is all on the personal level.
4. 8% chose a societal issue and gave the reason thatstudents take it as a societal issue as, in a secular society, medicine and law are the principal institutions that maintain the value of respect for human life in society as a whole. The legalization of euthanasia would impact society’s thinking and would drive them to think selfishly. For example – family members can force a person to die to acquire his or her property, doctors can benefit themselves by the system of organ donation, demanding lump-sum money to kill someone as they get the ultimate power to conduct someone’s death without breaking the law

Then students were asked about what they think the main argument/s behind whether to legalize euthanasia India will be? They were again given five options to choose and to give the reason why they chose them.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YHzP0yRai8Q3Kdf0viYueMcjEY8EpI7rxCrRheRvJec/edit#responses

1. The student who chose the ethics of the doctor says that the main argument can be the Hippocratic Oath of a doctor. There are cases in the country where contemporary where health care service is not sufficient enough to revive the person in his/her into a sound mind so it as an ethical duty of the doctor to under the need of time and situation from which the patient family is going through and should end that person’s life. And legalizing euthanasia will go against the ethics of doctors as they will start helping people to end their life which is highly immoral for the doctor.
2. The students who think the main argument behind legalizing euthanasia will be medicine limitations said that resources for the treatment of a chronic illness are very limited.
3. The students who think the main argument will be freedom of a person to take his own life thinks that a person can decide for themselves whether or not to end their life when they are suffering and incurable disease. If legalized than one can have a choice to put an end to his suffering through legal means.
4. The students who think the application of law as the main argument say that it will be a huge responsibility of the government to make strict rules and regulations for itand the others who feel it is not valid might argue or can make an issue over this.

The third question was is euthanasia and assisted suicide sometimes the only way to relieve excruciating pain?

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YHzP0yRai8Q3Kdf0viYueMcjEY8EpI7rxCrRheRvJec/edit#responses

It was found that many fewer people think there can another way to relieve excruciating pain. There can be other methods to relieve pain like palliative care, but as we can see this in this static fewer people know about it.

Poor access to Palliative care

According to WHO, every year around 40 million people need palliative care but 78% of them are of low and middle income. There has been a lot of barriers in the palliative care like in national health policies palliative care is not included at all, so those who want are not able to reach these policies, there is a lack of awareness of this among the policymakers, training in the palliative care is limited or even not there in some countries, sometimes they fail to meet the medication they want for the treatment because of the failure on the access of essential medicines. There is a misconception that improving he dosage of medicine can lead to increased substance abuse and there is afalse belief that palliative care is only for those people who are the patients of cancer or are in the final stage of their lives

Fourth question and last was whether they will regard euthanasia as blunting our sensibilities towards the worth of human life?

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1YHzP0yRai8Q3Kdf0viYueMcjEY8EpI7rxCrRheRvJec/edit#responses

74.4% people think that euthanasia would blunt our sensibilities towards the worth of human life as they believe that if euthanasia would be legalized people would not value their lives or lives journeys as they would have an easy legal escape from all their problems i.e. death. Human beings have the nature of getting depressed even if there is only a little problem in their hand so people fear that they would ask for death drugs and nobody would be able to stop them from making this decision. People also regard it to be the destruction of the whole value system of the society as doctors and family members would act selfishly. They would not show concern towards the old people and would grow materialistic.

But people need to understand that if the patient is in excruciating pain and there is no cure for it or he would last only a few days it would be relieving for them to ask for euthanasia as they would not have to live in pain for the sake of living just a few more days. There is a time to let go or to allow letting go, someone who decides their time on Earth is beyond tolerable.

• SUGGESTIONS

In our opinion first of the whole concept and meaning of the term EUTHANASIA should be cleared in order that people stop comparing it with suicide and mercy killing. As we’ve seen within the survey conducted by us that nearly a majority have this misconception. People should be made aware that Euthanasia isn’t violation of Human Rights but is protecting their rights even within the last and crucial phase of life.

Secondly, we feel that the quality of life should be upheld so as to guard the dignity of terminally ill patients. If terminally ill patients are denied of death with dignity it’ll amount to cruel and inhuman treatment to them.

The best features of all the euthanasia laws available worldwide should be taken into thought while drafting a euthanasia law for India. The loopholes should be overcome so as to draft a good piece of legislation. A separate legislation should be made allowing only voluntary euthanasia and not involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia. Parliament should set out certain conditions under which euthanasia will be legal as bellow;

1) Assent of the patient must be acquired,

2) Failure of each medical treatment or when the patient, experiencing a fatal illness, is in an irremediable conditions or gets no opportunity to recover or survival as he’s experiencing an excruciating life or the patient has been in coma for 20/30 years,

3) The monetary or financial state of the patient or his family is exceptionally low,

4) Intention of the doctor must not be to cause hurt,

5) Proper safeguard must be taken to remain far from maltreatment of it by doctors,

6) Abuse by members of the family for money related issues, defenceless state of the patient, wrong diagnosis by the doctor, etc., need to be addressed well crafted legislation,

7) Any different conditions pertinent to the precise case

We also suggest that a proper quasi-judicial authority having a proper knowledge within the medical field can be appointed to look into the request of the patient and also the steps taken by the doctor. One or two people from the legal field also can be appointed in order that this may avoid any abuse of this right granted to the terminally ill patients.

Along these lines, Euthanasia might be authorized, yet the laws would need to be exceptionally tough. Each case should be deliberately checked considering the purpose of perspectives on the patient, the members of the family and also the doctors.

As rightly said by Lord, Denning, “thus far has the law developed up so far. Now there are further developments looming ahead.” there’s an enormous scope of development in this area which should be looked at.But whether Indian society is mature enough to face this, as it is a matter of life and death, should be seen first.

• CONCLUSION

There has consistently been and will always be contentions among individuals who will support and be against the likelihood of euthanasia. This medical culture will undoubtedly change with the new laws, which can be executed if the euthanasia is permitted. In our opinion euthanasia should be legalized as it’s a sensitive issue so it depends on situations and each situation demands an entirely new different way of thinking and looking at it. People are never getting to have a typical conclusion concerning that and many would change their opinions with time, so we ought to not make it a good or bad thing or attempt to use the law to force our feeling on others. In India, there’s a shortage of health resources. Accordingly, many people that are sick and will be cured can’t get speedy access to the facilities they require for treatment. Simultaneously health resources are being utilized on individuals who cannot be relieved, and who, for his or her reasons, would like to not continue living. Permitting such individuals to commit euthanasia wouldn’t just allow them to have what they have; it’d free valuable assets to treat individuals who got to live. Additionally, if the patient is an organ donator and also the organs are healthy, it’s going to save several lives which are ultimately invaluable. This follows the necessity principle in LAW OF TORTS because it governs protections of rights of a majority than of an individual.

There is a requirement for experimental research on the topics of perceptions and perspectives concerning euthanasia and in India among huge quantities of experts and the overall population to form important inferences on the necessity to legitimize euthanasia or not. Doctors must inform themselves about the important nature and function—or dysfunction—of medical aid in dying legislation. The initial step is to perceive and challenge the various myths that encompass these considerably well-intended yet misguided laws. Doctors wish to make sure good lives, to not ensure existence at all costs.

[1]Yvette Brazier, What are Euthanasia and assisted Suicide, MEDICAL NEWS TODAY (2018), https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/182951.

[2]John Keown, No Constitutional Right to Physician Assisted Suicide, 56 CAMBRIDGE L. J., 497, 498 (1997).

[3]Faith Lagay, Physician-Assisted Suicide: The Law and Professional Ethics, AMA JOURNAL OF ETHICS (2003), https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/physician-assisted-suicide-law-and-professional-ethics/2003-01.

[4]SreeRamya, Common Cause vs. Union of India, LAW TIMES JOURNAL (2019), http://lawtimesjournal.in/common-cause-vs-union-of-india/.

[5]The pros and cons of legalising euthanasia, THE WEEK UK (2018), https://www.theweek.co.uk/95754/the-pros-and-cons-of-legalising-euthanasia.

[6]C. F Donovan, General practitioners and voluntary euthanasia, 52 BRITISH MEDICAL BULLETIN, 246 (1996).

[7]Stacy Nalley, Euthanasia: Right to Choose, 1 ESSAI, 109, 110 (2003).

[8]Arguments Against Euthanasia Analysis Philosophy Essay, UKESSAYS (2016), https://www.ukessays.com/essays/philosophy/arguments-against-euthanasia-analysis-philosophy-essay.php.

[9]David Woods, Doctors as gods, WHYY (2017), https://whyy.org/articles/essay-doctors-as-gods/.

[10]The pros and cons of legalising euthanasia, THE WEEK UK (2018), https://www.theweek.co.uk/95754/the-pros-and-cons-of-legalising-euthanasia.

[11]Richard Doerflinger, Assisted Suicide: Pro-Choice or Anti-Life, 19 THE HASTINGS CENTER REPORT, 16, (1993).

[12]Ethics – Euthanasia: Pro-euthanasia arguments, BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml .

[13]Gerald Dworkin, The Theory And Practice Of Autonomy,(1988).

[14]Danny Sullivan, Why active euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be legalized,

 BMJ (2001), https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/if-autonomy-valuable-euthanasia-should-be-permissible.

[15]Matthew K. Nock & Ellen Townsend., The Oxford Handbook Of Suicide And Injury 473, (2014).

[16]Farooq Khan & George Tadros, Physician-assisted Suicide and Euthanasia in Indian Context: Sooner or Later the Need to Ponder!, NCBI  (2013), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3701348/.