Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs. Union of India | Current Affairs & General Knowledge - CLAT PDF Download

Year - 2018
Jurisdiction - India
Law(s) - Article 21 of Constitution
Bench Strength - 5
Case Type/Origin - Civil Writ Petition
Case Status - Not Overruled

Facts

In 2005, a registered NGO filed PIL in the Supreme Court under Art.32 of the Indian constitution to legalize living will and passive euthanasia. Prior to this the registered society wrote letters to ministry of law and justice, ministry of health and family welfare with regard to passive euthanasia. The petitioners received no response from the government and thus filed the PIL. The petitioner’s contended that the right to live with dignity is a person’s right till his death so it can be extended to include the right to have a dignified death. And that the modern technology has given rise such a situation whereby life of the patient is unnecessarily prolonged causing distress and agony to the patient and his relatives.

Issues

• Whether Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the Right to Life includes the Right to Die?
• Whether passive euthanasia should be permitted on the living will of patient?
• Whether there is any difference in passive euthanasia and active euthanasia?
• Whether an individual has any right to refuse medical treatment including withdrawal from life saving devices.

Arguments

Arguments in favour of petitioners:

• Every individual has a right to self-determination, and thus should be permitted to choose their own fate.
• The modern medical technology has found out so many drugs and medicines that unnecessarily prolong life of causing a lot of distress and agony to the patients and his/her relatives thereof.
• It is better to die rather than being under persistent pain and suffering using medication that does not cure but prolongs the life of patients.
• In cases of incurable, degenerative, disabling or debilitating condition a person should be allowed to die in dignity as in majority of the cases the mercy petition is filed by the sufferers, of the family members or any such caretakers. The burden upon the family is so huge and cuts across various domains such as financial, emotional, time, physical, mental and social aspects.
• Right to refuse medical treatment is well recognized in law, including medical treatment that sustains or prolongs life. The right to renounce treatment gives a way for passive euthanasia.
• Euthanasia in terminally ill patients provides an opportunity to advocate for organ donation. This, in turn, would help many patients suffering organ failure waiting for transplantation. Passive euthanasia not only gives an individual the ‘Right to die ‘for the terminally ill, but also ‘Right to life‘for the organ-needy patients.

Arguments In favour of the Respondent

• not all deaths are painful;
• The ‘Right to life’ under Art.21 is a natural right inherited on birth by every citizen , but euthanasia/suicide is an unnatural termination or extinction of life and, therefore it is hostile and inconsistent with the concept of ‘right to life’ and thus Right to life does not include right to die.
• It is the duty of the State to protect life and euthanasia would undermine the physician’s duty to provide care and save life of the patients.
• Allowing euthanasia will discourage the search and invention of new cures and treatments for the terminally ill and thus there won’t be any prospect with regard to the discovery of possible cure for the disease in near future.
• Euthanasia would weaken society’s respect for the sanctity of life.
• There is availability of alternatives, such as cessation of active treatment, combined with the use of effective pain relief

Judgement

The Supreme Court in this case held that an individual has a right to die with dignity as a part of his/her Right to life and personal liberty under Art.21 of the Indian Constitution. This ruling thus permits the removal of life-support systems for the terminally ill or those in incurable comas. The court further permitted individuals to decide against artificial life support, and recognized the need for creating a living will.
The Court in this particular case further laid down certain propositions regarding the procedure for execution of Advance Directives and provided the guidelines thereof to give effect to passive euthanasia.