Does Right to Life Include Right to Die ? Essay

The assignment feat bears the imprint of humannessy an opposite(prenominal) people, and I express my gratitude to each(prenominal) those who prolong helped me and r abolishered their help in only the realistic ways in a issue of my assignment.No work sack up be successful without the guidance and blessing of elders and this work is no exception. It is a matter of extensive pleasure to express my gratitude to my faculty Honble Prof. S. K. gaur for his guidance and excellent insights which gave direction andfocus to this paper. I thank him for lending his precious condemnation in making this assignment anauthentic set of work. He regularly guided me. I too owe sincere gratitude to the ply at library for always sh be in the unconscious process of finding secular and another(prenominal) sources for research.I am really grateful to my senior Mr. Animesh Kumar and all the singulars manifold in the subgroup for their contri just nowions and tending in digest this assi gnment and the recommendations that go with it they are the essence of an open, inter active and creative cooperation. I similarly thank social ne twainrking site for meddlesome the required in stampation in minute and as per needed. How I entirelyt joint exit to grant credit and my satisfaction to my jocks. My knowledgeability and family really supported me throughout in my endeavours to which I am honoured to thank.Protection of smell and Personal Liberty hold 21 immortalizes as No mortal shall be deprived of his living or ad hominem liberty except according to aprocedure puddled by integrity. The phraseology whitethorn be negative, just it has conferred an obligation on the dead body politic to ensure good quality of flavour and a reward flavor to the people, which is the positive aspect of the article. According to Bhagwati, J. , denomination 21 embo dissects a constitutional value of independent importance in a representative society. Iyer, J. , has characterized name 21 as the adjectival magna cartaprotective of vivification and liberty.This reform has been held to be the feel of the piece, the most organic and progressive preparation in our living constitution, the foundation of our laws. Article 21 secures two justlys * make up up to disembo break upd spirit story and * Right to individual(prenominal) liberty. The Article prohibits the passing of the above secures except according to aprocedure completed by law. Article 21 keep only be claimed when a soulfulness is deprived of his disembodied spirit or personal liberty by the State as outlined in Article 12. infraction of the rectify wing by a c defeatestine individual is non in spite of appearance the see of Article 21.Article 21 applies to inborn persons. The skilful is available to every person, citizen or alien. Thus, until now a foreigner after part claim this slump. Right to heart An establishment The barrier vivification as mentioned i n the Article has been given a freehanded meaning by the controlling judicial system. Right to Life does not merely mean the lengthiness of a persons living organism universe of discourse but a quality of biography. In the character reference of Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, theSupreme apostrophize quoted with approval Field, J. s observation in Munn v. Illinois, and held By the term deportment as here apply something more than is meant than mere animal existence.The ban against its deprivation extends to all those limbs and faculties by which biography is enjoyed. The provision equally prohibits the mutilation of the body by amputation of an arm or leg or the pulling out of an eye, or the devastation of any other organ of the body through which the soul communicates with the outer world. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, the Supreme coquet reiterated with theapproval the above observations and held that the right to life complicated the right to tra ce a healthy life so as to enjoy all faculties of the humanitykind body in their prime conditions.It would even hold the right to protection of a persons tradition, finis, heritage and all that gives meaning to a mans life. It includes the right to live in peace, to recreation in peace and the right to drop and health. In P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the Supreme law approach defined Life as followsthe right to live with human high-handedness and the kindred does not connote move drudgery.It takes within its fold some of the fine graces of culture which makes life worth living and that the grow concept of life would mean the tradition, culture and heritage of the person concerned. In Olga Tellis, the Supreme tribunal has emphasized that the term life in Article 21 is not only restricted to mere animal existence of a person. It room something more and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extents to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed. No Right to Die or Commit suicide Can the right to life be interpreted to such(prenominal) an extent which leads to its self destruction or self reverse? That is, can it include within its arena the right not to live or the right to die? The word leniency killing comes from the Greek Eu death wish derived from the linguistic process eu meaning good and thanatosmeaning death.It is the well-read killing by act or omission of a dependant human being for his or her alleged benefit. Somehow the meaning of Euthanasia is explained in light of suicide era suicide is, many an(prenominal) agree, considered as wrap up except that it is the victim who is the author himself. nonpareil of its kinds is assisted suicide which happens when someone provides an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her receive life with the intention that they allow for be used for this objective. The word mercy killing is or so ambiguous and has several possible meaning. th erefrom it is appropriate to explain what we mean by the term whenever it is used. For the purpose of this assignment, euthanasia will mean the act of ending the life of a person from compassionate motives, when he is already terminally ill or, when his throe has become unbearable Euthanasia is the intentional premature release of another persons life either by direct intervention (active euthanasia) or by withholding life-prolonging measures and resources ( static euthanasia), either at theexpress or implied request of that person (voluntary euthanasia), or in the absence seizure of such approval (non-voluntary euthanasia). voluntary euthanasia where the individual wishes to go on living is aneuphemism for murder. Passive euthanasia is unremarkably defined as withdrawing medical discourse with a deliberate intention ofcausing the longanimouss death. For example, if a longanimous requires kidney dialysis to survive, not prominent dialysisalthough the shape is available, is supine euthanasia. Similarly, if a patient is in coma or on a heart lungmachine, withdrawing of the machine will ordinarily result in passive euthanasia.Similarly not bounteous lifesaving medicines like antibiotics in certain situations may result in passive euthanasia. Denying pabulum to a person in coma may in like manner amount to passive euthanasia. Euthanasia and felo-de-se were clearly defined in the skid NareshMarotraoSakhre v. Union of India J. Lodha secernated- Suicide by its very nature is an act of self-killing or self-destruction, an act of terminatingones possess act and without the aid or attention of any other human position while Euthanasia or mercy killingon the other hand implies the intervention of other human agency to end the life. grace killing is therefore notsuicide and an attempt at mercy killing is not cover by the provisions of subsection 309. The two concepts areboth factually and legally distinct. Euthanasia or mercy killing is nothing but h omicide whatever thecircumstances in which it is performed. Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code1860, punishes a person convicted of attempting to rehearse suicide. There had been difference of opinion on the justification of this provision to continue on the Statute Book. The question came for consideration for starting time before the High romance of BombayinState of Maharashtra v.MarutiSripatiDubal. In this case the Bombay High judiciary heldthat the right to life guaranteed at a lower place Article 21 includes right to die, and the Honble High court of justice struck humble Section 309 of the IPC which provides penalisation for attempt to commit suicide by a person as unconstitutional. raise in ChennaJagadeeswar v. State of A. P. , the Andhra Pradesh High greet held that the right to die is not a fundamental right under Art. 21 and hence Section 309 of I. P. C is not unconstitutional. In P. Rathinam v.Union of Indiaa Division terrace of the Supreme motor hotel,suppo rting the conclusiveness of the High solicit of Bombay in MarutiSripatiDubal Case, heldthat under Article 21 right to life besides include right to die and set down that section 309 of Indian Penal Court which deals with attempt to commit suicide is a penal offence unconstitutional. A five-judge Constitution terrace of the Supreme Court in GianKaur v. State ofPunjab,overruled the close of the Division Bench in the above stated case and has putan end to the controversy and ruled that Section 309 of IPC was neither violative of Article 21nor Article 14.The court held that the right to life under Article 21 did not include the right to die. As observed by arbiter J. S. Verma Any aspect of life which makes it dignified may be read into Article 21 of the Constitution but not that which extinguishes it and is therefore inconsistent with the continued existence of life resulting in effacing the right itself. Right to life is a indwelling right embodied in Art. 21 but suicide is a n unnatural finale or extinction of life and, contrary and inconsistent with the concept of right to life.Referring to the protagonists of euthanasias view that existence in persistent vegetative state was not a benefit to the patient of terminal illness being unrelated to the principle of sanctity of life or to the right to live with dignity the Court said that this argument was of no assistance to determine the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution for deciding whether the guarantee of right to life therein includes the right to die. The Court made it clear that the right to life including the right to live with human dignity would mean the existence of such right upto the end of natural life.This also includes the right to a dignified life upto the point of death including a dignified procedure of death. This may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is wane out. But the right to die, with dignity at the end of life is not to be confused wit h the right to die an unnatural death loping the natural pas de deux of life. The court reiterated that the argument to support the views of permitting termination of life in such cases (dying man who is terminally ill or in a vegetative state) by accelerating the process of natural death when it was certain and close at hand(predicate) was not available to interpret Art. 1 to include therein the right to curtail the natural span of life.ARUNA RAMCHANDRA SHANBAUG v. UNION OF INDIA Recently,Passive euthanasia has been made legal in India. On 7 March 2011 the Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving ArunaShanbaug, who has been in a vegetative state for 37 years at tabby Edward commemoration Hospital. Facts Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug was a staff Nurse workingin King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai.On the evening of twenty-seventh November, 1973 she was attackedby a sweeper in the hospital who wrapped a dog mountain range more or less her neck and yanked her back with it. He triedto rape her but finding that she was menstruating, he sodomized her. To immobilize her during this act hetwisted the chain around her neck. The next day on twenty-eighth November, 1973 at 7. 45 a. m. a unsoiled found herlying on the floor with ancestry all over in an unconscious condition. It is alleged that due to strangulation by thedog chain the supply of oxygen to the head stopped and the brain got damaged.She was bed ridden for foregone 37 years. The Court rejected active euthanasia by means of fatal injection. In the absence of a law regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a equal law. Active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds for the purpose of ending life, is still illegal in India, an d in most countries. While rejecting Pinki Viranis plea for Aruna Shanbaugs euthanasia, the court laid out guidelines for passive euthanasia.According to these guidelines, passive euthanasia involves the withdrawing of treatment or food that would allow the patient to live. As India had no law about euthanasia, the Supreme Courts guidelines are law until and unless fantan passes principle. The following guidelines were laid down 1. A decision has to be taken to interrupt life support either by the parents or the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attend the patient.However, the decision should be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient. 2. Even if a decision is taken by the advance relatives or doctors or next friend to withdraw life support, such a decision requires approval from the High Court concerned. 3. When such an application is filed the Chief Justice of the High Court should forthwith constitute a Bench of at to the lowest degree two Judges who should decide to admit approval or not. A direction of three reputed doctors are to be nominated by the Bench who will give state regarding the condition of the patient.Before giving the verdict a notice regarding the report should be given to close relatives and the State. later on hearing the parties, the High Court can give its verdict. CONCLUSION Euthanasia, too, is a debatable subject, not only becausethere are many different moral dilemmas associatedwith it, but also in what constitutes its definition. Atthe extreme ends of disagreement, advocates sayeuthanasia, also cognise as physician aid in dying, orphysician assisted suicide, is a merciful system of death. At the other end are opponents of euthanasia, who mayconsider this method as a form of murder.After the detail shoot of various states legislations and the detail study ofthe cases, still the matteris a question of surround that whether Euthanasia is asuicide or dignified end of life. Many state legalize Euthanasiabut in the high profile state as well as in IndiaEuthanasia is not permitted even after their broaderverdict that right to life means dignified life and this rightto life include dignified end of life too. To provide an ultimate healing touch on for the dying, thelogical, the common sense, the compassionate approachfor Euthanasia can be legalized by the interference of lawand legislation for the permissive Euthanasia society.And so utmost as the misuse is concern it is cognise that everyboon possesses some curse, even Code of MedicalEthics (Sec. 33 of Indian Medical council Act 1956) mayalso be treated as a resistance while legalize Euthanasia as a safeguard for the curse. Thus this right to dignified end of life should bebestowed upon the individuals, family, physicians and thesociety at large with necessary dogmatic mechanism . Adecision in time can avoid rebuke to the dying, canrelease recourses to save other retrievable lives andavert wound up and fiscal agony to the survivors.