SC Permits Withdrawal of Life Support in India’s First Passive Euthanasia Case
Syllabus: GS2/Polity; Health
Context
- The Supreme Court practically applied the principles of passive euthanasia for the first time by permitting the withdrawal of clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH) to 32-year-old Harish Rana.
About
- The court laid down that:
- withdrawal of life support must be in the “best interests” of the patient and guiding factors include whether life support provided to the patient qualify as medical treatment;
- whether medicines have any therapeutic benefit, but only works to prolong life, pain and suffering for the patient;
- and whether it would be in the best interest of the patient to artificially prolong life.
- The court said the patient must be looked after in a sensitive manner with concerns for his or her dignity given foremost importance.
- The judgment decisively draws the boundaries on when to allow natural death to take over.
- The bench noted that there is no comprehensive legislation addressing end-of-life care in the country and urged the Centre to enact a law in this regard.
Euthanasia
- Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life to eliminate pain or suffering
- Ethicists differentiate between active and passive euthanasia.
- Passive euthanasia entails the deliberate decision to withhold or withdraw medical interventions, like life support, with the aim of permitting a person’s natural death.
- Active Euthanasia is the intentional act of killing a terminally ill patient on voluntary request, by the direct intervention of a doctor for the purpose of the good of the patient. It is illegal in India.
Legal Stance
- The Supreme Court had in 2018 legalised passive euthanasia, contingent upon the person having a “living will”.
- SC held that the ‘right to die with dignity’ forms a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- A living will is a written document that specifies the actions to be taken if the person is unable to make their own medical decisions in the future.
Arguments in Favour of Assisted Dying
- Autonomy and Choice: Individuals should have the right to make decisions about their own lives, including the choice to end it to avoid prolonged suffering.
- Relief from Suffering: Assisted dying provides a compassionate option for those with terminal illnesses or unbearable pain, allowing them to die with dignity.
- Respect for Individual Rights: People should have control over their bodies and lives, including the decision to end their life in a humane and controlled manner.
Arguments Against Assisted Dying
- Moral and Ethical Concerns: Many believe that taking a life, even at the person’s request, is morally wrong and goes against the sanctity of life.
- Risk of Abuse: Vulnerable individuals, such as those with mental health issues or pressure from family, may be coerced into choosing assisted dying.
- Medical Ethics: Healthcare professionals are traditionally bound to preserve life, and assisted dying may conflict with the fundamental role of doctors in healing and care.
- Alternative Solutions: There are arguments that palliative care and pain management can provide relief, making assisted dying unnecessary.
Way Ahead
- Palliative Care Expansion: Improving access to high-quality palliative care to address suffering and reduce the demand for assisted dying.
- Public Debate: Ongoing discussions about the moral, legal, and ethical implications of assisted dying, can be considered while framing the guidelines.
- International Perspective: Countries may look to those with legal assisted dying frameworks (e.g., the Netherlands, Canada) for guidance on effective regulation and safeguards.
- Mental Health Support: Providing psychological evaluations to prevent coercion or impulsive decisions and ensure informed consent is given.
Supreme Court Reiterates Support for Uniform Civil Code
Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance
Context
- The Supreme Court of India reiterated its support for a Uniform Civil Code, observing that a common civil law framework would help address complexities arising from multiple personal laws governing marriage, divorce, and succession across communities.
Supreme Court’s Observations
- The petition before the court challenges provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, arguing that it discriminates against Muslim women in matters such as inheritance.
- The Court stated that striking down personal law provisions may create a legal vacuum regarding inheritance rules.
- It emphasised that a Uniform Civil Code would provide a clearer and more comprehensive solution to ensure equality in personal laws, which requires legislative action, not only judicial decisions.
What is Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?
- A Uniform Civil Code refers to the provision of one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities, in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, etc.
- Aim: To replace the existing diverse personal laws that vary based on religious affiliations.
Constitutional Provisions
- Article 44 contained in part IV of the Constitution says that the state “shall endeavor to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India”.
- Part IV of the Constitution outlines the Directive Principles of State Policy, which, while not enforceable or justiciable in a court of law, are fundamental to the country’s governance.
UCC in India
- UCC in Goa: It follows the Portuguese Civil Code of 1867, which means that people of all religions in Goa are subject to the same laws on marriage, divorce, and succession.
- The Goa Daman and Diu Administration Act of 1962, which was passed after Goa joined the union as a territory in 1961, gave Goa permission to apply the Civil Code.
- In 2024, The Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly passed The Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand Act, 2024, becoming the first Indian State to adopt a UCC post-independence.
Arguments in favor of UCC
- Uniformity in Governance: Having a common set of laws would streamline governance and administrative processes, making it easier for the state to administer justice and ensure the rights of its citizens.
- Women’s Rights: Personal laws in different religions have discriminatory provisions, particularly against women, and a uniform code will provide a more egalitarian legal framework.
- Secularism: A Uniform Civil Code is seen as a way to reinforce the secular fabric of the country by treating all citizens equally irrespective of their religious affiliations.
- The Supreme Court in various judgments including Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum judgment of 1985, has called for the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code.
- Promote national Spirit: The implementation of a UCC will promote the integration of India by establishing a shared platform for diverse communities.
Arguments against UCC
- Issues with implementation: The implementation of the code has been difficult because India is a diverse country with various religious communities following their own personal laws.
- It has been argued that the marriage and death rituals observed by tribal communities differ from Hindu customs, and there is concern that these practices may also face prohibition.
- Challenge for Law and Order: It would be a tyranny to the minority and when implemented could bring a lot of unrest in the country.
- Against Constitutional provisions: UCC is perceived as an infringement upon the constitutional right to freely exercise one’s chosen religion found in Article 25 and 26 and the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution
Way Ahead
- Build broad social consensus: The government should undertake wide consultations with religious leaders, legal experts, civil society groups, and minority communities to ensure that the framework reflects India’s pluralistic character and reduces apprehensions.
- Focus on gender justice: The primary objective should be to remove discriminatory provisions in personal laws, particularly those affecting women in matters of marriage, divorce, maintenance, and inheritance.