Euthanasia needs relook

In spite of the Centre’s objections, a Constitution Bench of the SC headed by Chief Justice R.M. Lodha has sought the views of states and Union Territories on the question of passive euthanasia. The expression essentially means that, unlike in the case of active euthanasia, if a patient is terminally ill or in a vegetative state, his close relatives can urge doctors to withdraw life support systems.

The patient, in a display of “living will”, may also in advance direct that life support be ended so that his life may not be dragged out either in a state of agony or in a state where he/she lives without dignity.

Attorney-general Mukul Rohatgi had opposed the court’s directive on the ground that mercy killing was still killing, and that suicide was a crime under our laws. Proponents of passive euthanasia say that such an idea of crime comes from Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, while Indian traditions permitted the taking of one’s own life through starvation.

This is an extremely difficult issue which came to the fore earlier this week with NGO Common Cause making a plea for mercy killing before the SC. But the attorney-general does have a point in saying that it is, properly speaking, the legislature that must deliberate on the matter. But the debate that has started can also serve as a guide to Parliament.