THE RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY

The issue of euthanasia is a subject of intense debate. It is undoubtedly a very delicate and personal problem of individuals and families. It also involves the rights and duties of attending doctors. COMMON CAUSE has been seized of this problem for a number of years. As a matter of fact, the late Mr. H. D. Shourie, Founder Director of COMMON CAUSE, had written a book entitled "VOLUNTARY EXIT" published by M/s.Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd, A-59, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi, Telephone no.26916209.

Since then there have been some developments (e.g. the case of Mr. Venkatesh Prasad, of Hyderabad who was in a terminal stage and he and his family wanted to donate his organs but could not do it due to the prevailing law) it was decided to take the matter to the court for appropriate decision. Accordingly, a Writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India in 2005 (it was the last Writ petition filed by Mr. Shourie). The Union of India filed counter affidavit, and Delhi Medical Association (DMA) has also filed an intervention application. As a matter of fact, the DMA has also convened a meeting of doctors and other experts for a public debate. The Writ petition has since been admitted and notices issued to the respondents. The events leading to the filing of our petition and its synopsis are reproduced below for the information of members.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

21.3.1996 This Hon'ble Court pronounced a judgment in the case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab reported in (1996) 2 SCC 648 declaring Section 306 and 309 IPC to be intra vires to the Constitution of India and holding that the right to life does not include right to die. However, this Hon'ble Court in the judgment observed in Para 24 and 25 that though there can be no right to die per se and it cannot be a part of right to life however, the `right to die with dignity' can be a part of right to live with dignity.

19.6.2002 The Petitioner organization wrote letters to the Government of India in the Ministry

&25.6.2002 of Health & Family Welfare and the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, and at the same the Petitioner referred this matter to the State Governments,taking into account the facts that hospitals come within the purview of State Governments otherwise medical functioning lies within the jurisdiction of State Governments as well as Government of India. In these communications, the petitioner had emphasized the need of avoidance of harrowing pain and distress attendant on prolongation of dying of a patient in the hospital. It was also emphasized that age of persons all over the world has substantially increased during the last few decades, and along with the increase of age, the problems connected with treatment of elderlies have multiplied, particularly when an elderly faces illness of serious nature and has to be taken to hospital for treatment. It is submitted that no reply to these communications was received.

18.2.2004 That on 18th December 2004, newspapers prominently depicted in their columns the serious problem of a young man of 25 years. Venkatesh from Hyderabad, who suffered from a form of muscular dystrophy, marked by progressive muscular weakness. In his case, it was stated to be an incurable hereditary disease. The young man, a previous Chess Champion, submitted a plea to High Court Andhra Pradesh to be allowed to donate his organs before his demise. The plea was turned down. Soon after the young man passed away. The death of Venkatesh in such circumstances, got highlighted in the media, and the matter became the subject of animated arguments. It was argued that euthanasia would be an appropriate approach in cases of incurable patients, and a demand was raised that the Government should pass suitable legislation on the lines of "Patients Self-Determination Act" as in U.S.A., or adopt the alternative of legalizing Euthanasia as has been done in certain countries, including, Belgium, Netherland and in the American State of Oregon.

In these circumstances, the petitioner who has always fought for the cause of people had no choice but to approach this Hon'ble Court for suitable directions to the Respondent so that the fundamental rights guaranteed to the people of this country under the Constitution are not violated.

That the problem/issue is persisting for want of desired laws, rules and/or guidelines and also due to certain penal provisions which makes it virtually illegal to respect the wishes of a person in a situation where he wishes to be relieved of his suffering. It will be worth mentioning that various countries across the globe have recognized these rights of their citizens and though being still skeptical about legalizing euthanasia has, however, enacted suitable legislations enabling the people to issue written advance directives in any form including Living Wills so that their wishes as contained in the documents so executed can be given effect to if they happen to go in a state when it will not be possible to ascertain their wishes. It is submitted that such laws apart from giving right to make a choice about their quality of life and to determine it while living with dignity ( right to die with dignity) also provides immunity to the medical practitioners from being prosecuted under various provisions of penal laws applicable to be given set of circumstances thus enabling them to work and practice medicine in fearless environment. This is a very important part of their right to practice any profession guaranteed to them under Article 19 of the Constitution.

That the Petitioner is thus praying to this Hon'ble Court to declare `right to die with dignity' (not `right to die' per se) as a fundamental right of the people of this country enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioner is further seeking direction from this Hon'ble Court, directing the Respondents, to adopt suitable procedures, in consultation with State Governments where necessary, to ensure that persons of deteriorated health or terminally ill should be able to execute a document titled "MY LIVING WILL & ATTORNEY AUTHORISATION" which can be presented to hospital for appropriate action in event of the executant being admitted to the hospital with serious illness which may threaten termination of life of the executant or in the alternative, issue appropriate guidelines to this effect, as adoption of such procedure or guidelines will ensure that the fundamental rights of such persons as guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are not infringed or violated in any manner.

25.4.2005 Hence the instant writ petition in public interest.