Model Answer

Passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal or withholding of life-sustaining treatment such as ventilators or artificial nutrition when a patient is in a terminal condition or persistent vegetative state. The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution to include not only the right to life but also the right to die with dignity, thereby providing a constitutional basis for passive euthanasia.

Constitutional and Legal Basis

The legal framework for passive euthanasia in India has evolved through judicial interpretation.

In Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India, the Supreme Court first recognised passive euthanasia under exceptional circumstances and required approval from the High Court.

Later, in Common Cause v. Union of India, a Constitution Bench held that the right to die with dignity is an intrinsic part of Article 21.

The Court also recognised “living wills” or advance directives, allowing individuals to state in advance their preference regarding life-sustaining treatment.

Recent Developments

The decision in the Harish Rana passive euthanasia case represents the first practical application of this legal framework.

The patient had remained in a persistent vegetative state for over 13 years after a severe accident.

The Court constituted two independent medical boards, which concluded that chances of recovery were negligible.

Based on these findings and family consent, the Court permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, demonstrating how the legal safeguards function in practice.

In 2023, the Supreme Court further simplified the procedure by reducing the role of judicial magistrates and introducing clear timelines for medical boards, making the process more accessible for families and hospitals.

Ethical Dimensions

Passive euthanasia raises significant ethical debates:

1. Autonomy and dignity

Supports the patient’s right to make decisions about their own body and end-of-life care.

2. Relief from suffering

Allows patients with irreversible medical conditions to avoid prolonged suffering.

3. Sanctity of life concerns

Critics argue that life must be preserved regardless of medical condition, raising moral and religious concerns.

4. Risk of misuse

There are fears that vulnerable patients may be pressured into such decisions for financial or social reasons.

To address these concerns, the Supreme Court has mandated multiple medical evaluations, documentation, and family consent.

Conclusion

Passive euthanasia in India reflects a humane and balanced interpretation of Article 21, reconciling the sanctity of life with the right to die with dignity. With clear safeguards and medical oversight, the evolving legal framework aims to ensure that end-of-life decisions are made with compassion, dignity, and accountability.