Passive Euthanasia and the Right to Die with Dignity | 28 Nov 2025

Source: IE

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has instructed a hospital to constitute a medical board to assess a petition seeking passive euthanasia for a 32-year-old individual who has remained in a “persistent vegetative state” for the past 12 years. 

• A Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) is a medical condition in which a person loses higher brain functions (like awareness, thinking, and purposeful movement) but retains basic bodily functions such as breathing, circulation, sleep–wake cycles, and reflexes.

What is Euthanasia? 

• About: Euthanasia refers to intentionally accelerating a person’s death to prevent further suffering from an incurable or terminal illness. It involves a painless, deliberate act aimed at relieving physical, emotional, or spiritual distress. It is of two types: 
  • Active Euthanasia: It involves deliberately ending a patient’s life. It can take different forms:  
    • Voluntary, where the patient consciously opts for death;  
    • Non-voluntary, where the decision is made for an incompetent patient; and  
    • Involuntary, where death is caused without consent (almost illegal in all countries). 
  • Passive Euthanasia: It allows a terminally ill patient to die naturally by withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment.  
    • This approach aims to uphold the right to die with dignity and prevent prolonged, futile suffering in irreversible medical conditions. 
• Legal Standing in India: 
  • Active Euthanasia: Indian law prohibits active euthanasia. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, categorizes any deliberate act causing death as an offense, prosecutable under its sections on culpable homicide (Section 100) or murder (Section 101). 
  • Passive Euthanasia: The Supreme Court (SC) has recognised passive euthanasia under certain restrictions, as long as it is in the best interests of the patient and follows the law. 
    • Article 21 guarantees that no one shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by law, and the Supreme Court interprets it to include health, livelihood, privacy, shelter, and dignity, but it does not include the right to die, except under certain circumstances allowing a dignified death 
  • Law Commission Stand: The 241st Report of the Law Commission (2012) clarified that a competent patient can refuse life-sustaining treatment without legal consequences, and doctors acting according to the patient’s informed wishes are not guilty of abetment or culpable homicide. 
• Related Judicial Pronouncements:  
  • Maruti Shripati Dubal v. State of Maharashtra (1987): The Bombay High Court held that the right to die forms part of the right to life under Article 21, and that individuals who are terminally ill or experiencing severe pain should be allowed to choose to end their lives. 
  • Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996): The SC stated that the right to life does not include the right to die, emphasizing that life is a natural gift that should be preserved rather than terminated. 
  • Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011): The SC allowed withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, even for patients who cannot make decisions but only under strict legal and medical safeguards. 
  • Common Cause v. Union of India (2018): The SC noted that active euthanasia (deliberate action to cause death) and passive euthanasia (withdrawing life-saving treatment) are distinct, stating that passive euthanasia may be permitted in rare cases.  
    • The Court established that a terminally ill patient has a fundamental right to die with dignity, which includes the right to refuse medical treatment through advance medical directives, known as living wills. 
• Supreme Court Directives on Euthanasia:  
  • Original 2018 Directives: The 2018 guidelines required a two-stage medical review: 
    • Primary Medical Board: Constituted by the hospital, including the Head of the treating department and at least 3 specialists from general medicine, cardiology, neurology, nephrology, psychiatry, or oncology, each with 20 years of experience. 
    • Secondary Medical Board: Appointed by the district collector, including the Chief District Medical Officer as Chairman and three expert doctors from the same fields. 
  • 2023 Modifications: The Supreme Court retained both boards but reduced the experience requirement from 20 years to five and set a 48-hour time limit for opinions.  
    • The secondary board now excludes the Chief District Medical Officer, allows a nominee by the District Medical Officer, and both boards have three members each. 
• Global Position on Euthanasia: Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium allow both euthanasia and assisted suicide for anyone experiencing unbearable suffering with no chance of improvement.  
  • Switzerland permits non-physicians to help the terminally ill commit suicide, though active euthanasia is illegal.  
  • Australia also allows both types, limited to adults with full decision-making capacity who have a terminal illness. 
  • These global variations highlight how euthanasia remains ultimately an ethical question, shaped less by medical capacity and more by each society’s moral principles, values, and philosophical traditions.

What are the Key Ethical Perspectives on Euthanasia?

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court’s intervention reinforces India’s evolving approach to the right to die with dignity, combining legal safeguards with compassionate care through a structured, medically-reviewed passive euthanasia process.