PROJECTS BY LAW STUDENTS
Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission
MADE BY:NIKHIL GOYAL
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ORISSA
BBA.LLB(1ST YEAR)
nikhil3092@gmail.com
RAJASTHAN STATE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION
PROJECTS BY LAW STUDENTS
UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF
SECRETARY, Mr. Ravi Shankar Shrivastava
(RAJASTHAN HUMAN RIGHTS
COMMISSION)
With best compliments
RSHRC
RAJASTHAN STATE HUMAN
RIGHTS COMMISSION
Under the guidance of
Hon’ble Mr. justice
N.K. jain
(former chief justice of
Madras & Karnataka
High Court)
Chairperson RSHRC
Prepared by:
Internship students of
various law universities
Hon’ble Chairperson and Members of
State Human Rights Commission are:
Justice N.K Jain, Chairperson
Members:
Justice Jagat Singh
Shri D.S.Meena
Shri Pukhraj Seervi
Euthanasia:
Its various perspective
Issues addressed
Euthanasia
2. Right to Die – A Constitutional Perspective
3. Right to Die: A Religious Answer
4. Right to Die: A Judicial View
1.
EUTHANASIA

Euthanasia (from
the Greek ευθανασία meaning "good
death": ευ-, eu- (well or good) + θάνατος,
thanatos (death)) refers to the practice
of ending a life in a manner which relieves
pain and suffering. According to the House
of Lords Select Committee on Medical
Ethics, the precise definition of euthanasia is
"a deliberate intervention undertaken with
the express intention of ending a life, to
relieve intractable suffering."
EUTHANASIA
 What
is Euthanasia?
 Kinds
of Euthanasia:-
a)Passive Euthanasia
b)Active Euthanasia
Active Euthanasia
Something is done to end the patient's life
1.
Passive Euthanasia
Something is not done that would have
preserved the patient's life
2.
• Active
•
Euthanasia: Illegal.
Passive Euthanasia: Legal.
Case
Referred
Aruna
Shanbaug V.
UOI
Aruna Shanbaug V. UOI


In this landmark case Aruna Shanbaug V. Union of
India where Aruna Shanbaug (63), a former nurse who
remains in coma for over 37 years. The Supreme Court
on 7th March 2011, Monday rejected a petition for the
mercy killing of Shanbaug, who has been in a
‘persistent vegetative state’ for the past 37 years after
being sodomised by a hospital sweeper Nov 27, 1973.
The court permitted PASSIVE EUTHANASIA if this
was allowed by a High court Shanbaug remains under
care in Mumbai’s King Edward Memorial (KEM)
Hospital.
Aruna Shanbaug V. Union of India, writ
petition(Criminal) 115 of 2009
Euthanasia
Bringing about a quiet and easy death
Suicide
When a person decides to end their own life.
Assisted suicide /
voluntary euthanasia
When a person needs to be helped by a doctor or relative to end their
own life, usually when they have a painful and terminal illness. A form
of euthanasia.
Non-voluntary euthanasia
When a person is unconscious or unable to decide for themselves (e.g.
babies) and they are not kept alive because the quality of life would be
so poor.
Not striving to keep alive
When a person has an illness from which they will die, there comes a
point when treatment is no longer given as it is simply prolonging the
patient’s pain & suffering. Doctors would not continue to keep the
person alive.
Article 21 of the constitution of
India.
 No
person shall be deprived of
his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure
established by law.
 Related to person’s Right to life.
Right to Die – A Constitutional
Perspective
Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration, AIR
1978 SC 1675 - held that ‘life’ here means
more than mere animal-like existence.
 Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal
Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 - held ‘life’
should be interpreted in wide and farreaching terms.
 Shantistar Builders v NK Totame, AIR
1990 SC 630 – held The Right to Shelter
inclusive in right to life


The expression “life” used in Article 21 of
the constitution of India includes a vast
interpretation.

It almost covers each basic and
fundamental rights of the citizen but like
Article 19 of the constitution of India which
construes that Right to speak includes
Right not to speak, it does not include
within it RIGHT TO DIE.
Evolution of Right to Die in Indian
Judiciary
Dubal v State of Maharashtra, 1987
Cri LJ 743
 P Rathinam v Union of India, AIR 1994
SC 1844


Gian Kaur v State of Punjab, AIR 1996
SC 946
The Right to Die: a religious answer
The religious answer for right to die
issues is not often very favourable to the
cause.
 The right to die debate is often mingled
with questions about what right human
beings have determining the “Will of
God”

The Protestants view
“Life is a gift from God”
“The process of dying is spiritually important”
“When people suffer on earth they entrust their
future to the risen Christ”
“All human lives are equally valuable”
The Roman Catholic view
“Euthanasia as morally wrong”
“Suffering and pain do not stop life being
valuable”
“Euthanasia is a rejection of God’s absolute
sovereignty over life and death”
But
“it is morally acceptable to refuse
extraordinary and aggressive medical
means to preserve life”
A Hindu View

Violation of KARMA
A doctor should not accept a patient's request
for euthanasia since this will cause the soul and
body to be separated at an unnatural time. The
result will damage the karma of both doctor and
patient.

Violation of AHIMSA
Euthanasia cannot be allowed because it
breaches the teaching of ahimsa (doing no
harm).
An Islamic view
“La darar wa la dirar fi’l islam”
(No harm shall be inflicted or reciprocated in
Islam)
Hence there is no immunity to a physician who
actively assists a patient to die.
 No
recognition of individual rights;
esssentially a divine decree.
 Both right to die and the right to be assisted
in dying is ruled out.
 However, pain relief treatment that could
shorten the life, which is administered to
relieve physical pain and not to kill is
permitted in Islamic law.
The Sikh view: Most Sikhs are against
euthanasia, as they believe that the timing of
birth and death should be left in God's
hands.
 The Buddhist view: Buddhists are not
unanimous on the notion of euthanasia and
the teachings of Buddha do not explicitly
deal with it.
 The Jewish view: Saving someone from pain
is not a reason to kill them. But, it does not
make doctors to make dying longer than it
naturally would.

Right to die: Judicial View
 Emphasizing towards
the society more rather
than the individual merit.
 Judiciary is SILENT.
 No access to justice for such a grave issue.
Emphasizing towards the society
more rather than the individual
merit
 Why
the debate arises?
Many of the ethical disagreements about
end-of-life decisions can be seen as
resulting from differing ethical
frameworks, esp. Kantian vs. utilitarian.
Facts and circumstances: KEY ROLE to
determine the individual merit.
Reasons For the silence of
judiciary
Misuse of the practice
 Terminally ill people recover and get well
 Big financial interests are often behind assisted
suicide laws.
 We can come up with better ways of helping the
dying besides assisted suicide

No access to justice
Although in the landmark judgment of
Aruna Shanbaug V. UOI, passive Euthanasia
has been legalised in India but till date many
petitions have been filed and are rejected
without knowing the seriousness of the case
in the name of humanitarian grounds.
 So therefore it can be said that there is no
access to justice for the people for taking the
plea of EUTHANASIA.

CONCLUSION
 The
debate in India goes side by side to the
ethical theories of Kantian and Utilitarian which
deals with individual merit and society.
 The debate to legalise active Euthanasia in India
stands on the same bank of the river like

Whether society should be given importance or
individual merit?
QUESTION TO DEBATE?
One dies longing for death but
death, despite being around is
elusive
This couplet was quoted by Justice Markandey Katju
while considering the Aruna Shanbaug case.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Google
 Wikipedia
 Unicef
 Books of RSHRC
 British Law Journal

ACKNOWLEDGEMNT
 It
gives me great pleasure to express my
Gratitude to all concerned in helping me
complete my project. I am very thankful to
Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission for
giving me a chance to do the internship here.
THANK YOU