Passive Euthanasia: A Right Choice?

The word "euthanasia" is derived from the Greek words "Eu’’ and "Thanatos," which means "Good Death"." Passive euthanasia can be termed as intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support such as a ventilator or feeding tube. Terminally ill patients are accelerated through passive euthanasia to relieve them of pain and suffering. In the 17th century, Francis Bacon referred to a happy and painless death, as doctors must alleviate the suffering of patients. The House of Lords selected a committee on Medical Ethics in England. The European Association of Palliative Care (EPAC) Ethics task force, in a discussion in 2003, said that "the killing of a patient without the consent of the patient is not euthanasia". Hence, consent is required in passive euthanasia, i.e., it should be voluntary only. The issue of passive euthanasia was triggered by the case of P. Rathinam VS Union of India (1994), where the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life under article 21 as inclusive of the right to die. The case of Gina Kaur VS State of Punjab (1996) identifies the right to refuse medical assistance. The Court refuses to expressly determine the validity and legality of euthanasia. On March 9, 2018, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia utilizing the withdrawal of life support to patients in permanent vegetative states [PVS]. The Historic Judgment was passed on the Aruna Shanbaug Case, which was a landmark case on passive euthanasia in India. In this article, because passive euthanasia is the right choice, different arguments are placed in favor of the topic. Historically, passive euthanasia tends to focus on many concerns. Many questions arise: Does passive euthanasia violate a patient's right to die? Is seeing our loved one suffering from pain ethical? What is better for a terminally ill person suffering from pain or a peaceful death? This article throws a huge light on the importance of passive euthanasia in India