Category: Right to Die

Introduction

If you think you have a say in what happens to your body, then you’re wrong. We spend our whole lives making decisions that shape our life and it’s entirely up to us, but when it comes time for us to die, we don’t even get a say in the matter. It should be our right to die when we want and how we want because after all, it is our body and our life. The debate on Euthanasia has made the public question the overall power we hold over our lives. Euthanasia is the purposeful and compassionate decision to advance a terminally ill person’s death for their benefit. Several arguments for this contemporary debate quickly began to surface declaring that this procedure is selfish and effects the sanctity of life. However it should not be someone else’s job to decide whether or not we can die. Terminally ill patients know the extent and pain of their condition enough to make a rational decision, while some patients have had their treatments discontinued and are forced to suffer unassisted until they eventually pass. Today I am going to add to this contemporary debate by saying that we as human beings should have the right to die.

Body

People that are terminally ill are more experienced with the pain of their disease, are old enough and wise enough to make a legitimate decision to end their life through assisted suicide if they choose.

These patients that have been diagnosed as terminally ill for such an extended period of time have had to live through the pain and complications of their disease and will have to live with it indefinitely. Studies done in the UK have found that over 300 people suffering from a terminal illness could potentially take their own life as euthanasia is not legal. These studies apply heavily to Australian patients as well due to the increase of patients in long-term critical conditions. People over the age of 18 that have received such a severe diagnosis are fully capable of making a legitimate and rational decision to end their life through the means of assisted suicide if they choose. However, due to the fact that euthanasia is not legalised in Australia, several of these significantly ill individuals that desperately want to be euthanized have been forced to go to extreme and expensive measures to end their suffering. These physically unstable patients have either had to spend a fortune to travel to a euthanasia-legalised country to fulfil their wish or they must take matters into their own hands and take other methods to end their life. Our loved ones should have the right to die in the comfort of their own home surrounded by love but cannot because Australia refuses to legalise the Euthanasia Policy.

People have the right to die – it is their body and life – there is not an actual Right in the Human Rights that include this, but our other human rights imply this. Now if we look at Australia’s Human Rights Record, there is not a confirmed entitlement that we have the right to die, but there is several of the Human rights which imply that it is our choice. This can be confirmed by the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Article 6 that states ‘Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life’. These patients have this right just like everyone else sitting here today, but the word ‘arbitrarily’ indicates that their death will be based off of random selection and without reason which clearly is not the case with euthanasia and implies that it is a potential right of human beings. Euthanasia or assisted suicide is a purposeful, empathetic and incredibly difficult decision made by the patient and in some cases the family. The Queensland Human Rights Commission has enacted section 17 from their Human Rights documentation that states, ‘People must not be tortured. People must also not be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way. This includes protection from treatment that humiliates a person. This right also protects people from having medical treatment or experiments performed on them without their full and informed consent’. This commission act implies that euthanasia is not against the Human Rights Act as this end-of-life treatment is fully consensual by the terminally ill patient or their carers and family members who also have the right to choose for them if they are unfit. Although it is not in writing that we can choose to die when we want, these Human Rights infer that we still have a choice and that the end of our life is not dictated by the government. Afterall, is it not our body? Do we not have the right to choose when we die?

For some patients, the continuation of their treatment can be deemed to be of no medical benefit to them and that they will not get better, but only worse and euthanasia is the compassionate choice. While some terminally ill patients that desire to be euthanised are on life support and alternative medical life extensions, other severely diagnosed patients have had their physically supporting treatment discontinued as it is no longer deemed beneficial. This decision of cancelling life support causes more pain to our loved ones then what they are already experiencing. It is more compassionate and empathetic to end their suffering in a quick and painless alternate such as euthanasia. Now when one of our adored pets are on the brink of passing, we make the benevolent decision to end their life through a form of euthanasia. Are we not merciful enough to do that for our loved ones? We, as their family, should be able to give them that relief. Let our loved ones die with dignity.

Conclusion

Euthanasia must not be negatively scrutinized for random and unrealistic drawbacks when it provides so much relief and comfort to the patient and their family. Australia must fully legalise this medical treatment for the use of these terminally ill patients. As Australian citizens, we must reclaim the say in what happens to us at the end of our life and our families’ lives. I fully understand that this treatment goes against several religious beliefs, but I believe that we as human beings are mature and wise enough to make that decision for ourselves when the time comes. We have the right to die. No one should ever take that away from us. If you do not believe in euthanasia and don’t want to be euthanized then do not take that choice away from others that do.

Literature Review

Some of the theories have been proposed to explain the importance of the moral and ethical standards of human life in the health care system. As indicated by the moral standards of autonomy, the persistent decision is principal in proceeding or withholding his/her treatment and the caretaker who is lawfully answerable for the patient and thinks about his/her desires, may have the moral and lawful right to won’t or demand for pulling back of any treatment or mediations. As per Mehdola & L.Block, (2016), in western countries, withdrawal of treatment is generally acknowledged in the case of a patient with life support or for those suffering from incurable diseases as per patients’ wishes. Devroey et al, (2013), also revealed the result of a study that was conducted on a person’s interest among 309 participants about the opinion of the patient rights in Belgium. In this study, 88% of participants agreed with the patient’s right to choose to end their life. The point of this research was to investigate awareness and opinion of a person’s rights and the issues faced with her/ his fulfillment among the Belgian population. Euthanasia is generally characterized as ‘circumstances when on request of the patient, specialists purposely induce the death of somebody who is enduring from unbearable pain in some countries where euthanasia is legal. According to a review of research of Lo, (2012), it is not acknowledgeable if a person is suffering from the terminally ill condition for a long time and there is no life to live than suffering. In such cases, continuity of medical treatment can increase suffering without any hope of life to live. Under firmly recommended conditions, deliberate killing or Assisted suicide is lawful in certain nations, for example, Netherland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Mexico, the United States, and Switzerland.

Human life is to be protected at all cost paying little heed to torment and enduring. A few social orders emphatically restrict willful extermination because of their religious and sociocultural standards. As per Hamarsheh and Mrayyan, (2018)., For instance, in Muslim nations, they accept that willful extermination is in opposition to the Islamic religion and its worth. Comparative perspectives exist in nations like Japan, Poland, Italy and Germany where there are solid social taboos, long history, and strict conviction that identify with the holiness of life.

Lo, (2012), here is presenting how intentionally killing can structure automatic or non-deliberate willful extermination, which is against the desire of the individual. We have to have clear strategies and severe laws to particular intentional killing structures automatic or non-deliberate willful extermination. The vast majority of the nations on the planet are not in favour of legitimizing willful extermination. In numerous nations helping the individual to end it, all will bring about the detainment and is considered as murder. For instance, in Jordan, willful extermination is illicit even with the assent from the patient and family it is considered as wrongdoing against human life. Most of the countries in the world are against legalizing euthanasia. In many countries assisting the person to commit suicide will result in imprisonment and is considered as murder. For example, in Jordan, euthanasia is illegal even with the consent from the patient and family it is considered as a crime against human life.

Robert Orfali, (2011). Communicated his stress over willful extermination that it tends to be utilized on poor people, handicapped and other defenseless individuals to chop down the medicinal costs. There is no standard to survey the psychological limit of the at death’s door patient to cause agree and they can be compelled to go in this direction. Fragile older or terminally sick people are relying upon the individuals around them especially relative and wellbeing experts. In this circumstance, it is difficult to survey the basic leadership limit of the individual.

Euthanasia has become a controversial issue since ages and still, it contributes to the good, and civilised death through preventing unbearable pain and suffering. Theory of the Caputo, (2015), revealed that It can be achieved by either intentionally giving some medication called active euthanasia or passively allowing to die patient by withholding treatment or taking away something they need to survive. Research of Lam, (2017) reflects on Peter Fitzsimons’ opinion about respect to willful extermination. Peter states that I will like to pass away peacefully at the age of 80 and he does not want to wait for unbearable pain. Peter says it is a privilege of a person to self-administering his own life that’s by his choice ought not to be viewed as wish or want.

Schafer, (2013). Deliberate willful extermination or helped suicide is illicit in Canada, both exhorting or helping the individual to carry out suicide is a criminal act in Canada. Both the places of parliament dismissed the bill, basically because of the dread about authorizing killing in a roundabout way will hurt powerless patients, handicapped and delicate older and it is difficult to shield them from misuse. Also, on the off chance that specialists are helping their patient for killing, at that point, they were abusing their expert duty as a wellbeing expert to advance the strength of the evil individual and diminish the mischief. This infringement of obligation imperils the trust connection among specialist and patient. The patient will lose their expectation towards human services experts.

Victoria is the main state to authorization killing in Australia. The Act comes in accomplishment from mid-2019. The Act comes in real life from mid-2019. But regions every one of the states were moving towards authorizing willful extermination.

One more contextual investigation was reflected by Evans, (2018), in which Kristine Klugman is a solid supporter of willful extermination and battles for regions rights to legalise killing because of her own experience. Kristine Klugman was determined to have cancer disease in 2011 after coming ACT in real life. For his situation, an operation was impossible because of physical quality and her age. Her illness returned after finishing chemo treatment. She says that treatment was long and excruciating on the off chance that anything turned out badly she would have taken her life. This the main reason that she does not want individuals to have to go that far to decide to end.

Pereira, (2012). The information gathered from 58 out of 61 progressive cases getting doctor helped suicide counsel in 2009, in that 57 out of 59 doctors helped self-destructive passings were led by master helped self-destructive hall gathering. Information’s from these cases made vulnerability in objectiveness of the appraisal and melancholy of certain patients stayed undiscovered. The creator of the report expresses that, Oregon wellbeing office authoritatively communicated the dread in regards to decrease of solicitation for the mental appraisal for those getting treatment under death with pride Act.

Leppert et al, (2013). A poll study led among 588 therapeutic understudies in 2 clean restorative colleges about frames of mind towards willful extermination. In that 81.8% of understudy against the willful extermination, 11.73% upheld killing and 6.46% not chose at this point. In this investigation, the lion’s share of members were ladies 67% and Catholics 85%

Pereira, (2012). The data collected from 58 out of 61 successive cases receiving physician-assisted suicide consultation in 2009, in that 57 out of 59 physicians assisted suicidal deaths were conducted by the pro-assisted suicidal lobby group. Data’s from these cases created uncertainty in objectiveness of the assessment and depression of some patients remained undiagnosed. The author of the report states that the Oregon health department officially expressed the apprehension regarding the decline of request for psychiatric assessment for those receiving treatment under death with dignity Act.

Leppert et al, (2013). A questionnaire survey conducted among 588 medical students in 2 polish medical universities about attitudes towards euthanasia. In that 81.8% of the student against the euthanasia 11.73% supported euthanasia and 6.46% not decided yet. In this study majority of participants were women 67% and Catholics 85%.

The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government. (Thomas Jefferson)

In our day-to-day life we often come across terminally-ill patients that are bedridden and are totally dependent on others. It is actually hurts their sentiments. Looking at them one must say death would be a better option for them rather than living such a painful life; which is painful physically as well as psychologically. But if one look at the Netherlands where euthanasia is made legal, one can see that how it is abused there. So, following its example, no one wants euthanasia to be legalized in India.

From the moment of his birth, a person is clothed with basic human rights. Right to life means a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that such human being has the right not to be killed by another human being. But the question arises that if a person has a right to live, whether he has a right not to live i.e., whether he has a right to die? While giving this answer, the Indian courts expressed different opinions.

In the land mark case of state of Maharashtra v. Maruti sripati dubal , wherein sripati Dubal tried to immolate himself. Apex court stated that section 309 Indian Penal code which deals with punishment for those found guilty of attempted suicide is not ultra vires of article 14 and article 21 of the constitution. Hence, the court held that ‘right to life’ under article 21 of the Indian constitution ‘includes right to die’.

However in chenna jagadesswar v. State of Andhra Pradesh , the Andhra Pradesh high court held that right to die is not a fundamental right under article 21 of the constitution. In 1994, the supreme court of India ruled in the case of P. Rathinam v. Union of india , that article 21 of the constitution i.e., ‘ right to live’ include ‘ right not to live’ i.e., right to die or to terminate one’s life. The apex court further stated that suicide attempt has no beneficial effect on society and the act of suicide is not against religions, morality or public policy.

But again in a landmark judgement passed by bench consisting of 5 members in Gian kaur v. State of Punjab , overruled the P. Rathinam’s case and held that ‘ right to life’ does not include ‘right to die’. Extinction of life’ is not included in ‘protection of life’. ‘ right to die’ with dignity at the end of life is not to be confused or equated with the ‘right to die’ an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life. Further, the court stated that provision under section 309, IPC penalizing attempts to commit suicide is not violative of article 14 or 21 of the constitution.

One of the controversial issues in the recent past has been the question of legalizing the right to die or euthanasia. Euthanasia is controversial since it involves the deliberate termination of human life. Patient suffering from terminal diseases are often faced with great deal of pain as the diseases gradually worsens until it kills them and this may be so frightening for them that they would rather end their life than suffering it. So, the question is whether people should be given assistance in killing themselves, or whether they should be left to suffer the pain caused by terminal – illness.

The term euthanasia comes from two ancient Greek words: ‘eu’ means ‘good’ and ‘thanatos’ means ‘death’, so euthanasia means ‘good death’. It is an act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or in an incurable condition by injection or by suspending extra-ordinary medical treatment in order to free him of intolerable pain or from terminal illness. Euthanasia is defined as an intentional killing by an act or omission of person whose life is felt not to be worth living. It is also known as ‘ Mercy Killing’ which is an act where the individual who, is in an irremediable condition or has no chances of survival as he is suffering from painful life, ends his life in a painless manner. It is a gentle, easy and painless death. It implies the procuring of an individual’s death, so as to avoid or end pain or suffering, especially of individuals suffering from incurable disease.

Oxford dictionary defines it as the painless killing of a person who has an incurable disease or who is in an irreversible coma. According to the House of Lords select committee on medical ethics, it is “a deliberate intervention under-taken with the express intention of ending life to relieve intractable suffering.” Thus, it can be said that euthanasia is the deliberated and intentional killing of a human being by a direct action, such as lethal injection, or by the failure to perform even the most basic medical care or by withdrawing life-support system in order to release that human being from painful life.

It is basically to bring about the death of terminally –ill patients or a disabled. It is resorted to so that the last days of a patient who has been suffering from such an illness which is terminal in nature or which has disabled him can peacefully end up his life and which can also prove to be less painful for him.

Thus, the basic intention behind euthanasia is to ensure a less painful death to a person who is in any case going to die after a long period of suffering. Euthanasia is practiced so that a person can live as well as die with dignity. In brief, it means putting a person to painless death in case of incurable diseases or when life becomes purposeless or hopeless as a result of mental or physical handicap.

The supreme court, had occasion to discuss the issues of suicide, euthanasia, assisted suicide, abetment of suicide, stopping life sustaining treatment in Gain Kaur v. State of Punjab . As the supreme court referred to some of the provisions of the indian penal code, 1860 in that connection. These are as follows :

a) Section 107,306 and 309 of the indian penal code, 1860. Section 306 of the IPC which refers to ‘ abetment of suicide’, reads as: If any person commits suicide whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall liable to fine.

b) Section 107 of the IPC defines ‘abetment of a thing’ as follows : A person abets the doing of a thing, who first: instigate any person to do that thing; secondly: engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly: intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

• Explanation .1. – a person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, volunatarily causes or procures, or attempts to procure or causes a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
• Explanation .2. –whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.

c) Section 309 of the code makes ‘attempt to commit suicide’ an offence and it states as follows :

Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. Thus, ‘attempt to commit suicide’ is an offence which may result in imprisonment (for a term which may extend to one year) or with fine or with both.

While dealing with section 309, it is necessary to refer to two important decisions of the supreme court of India where, in the first case in P. Rathinam v. Union of India , a two-judge bench of the supreme court struck down section 309 as unconstitutional and in the second case in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab , a constitution bench overruled the earlier judgement and upheld the validity of section 309.

In both the judgements, the provisions of article 21 of the constitution of India which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law were interpreted. It was held in both cases, that in any event, section 309 did not contravene article 21 of the constitution of India.

In Gian Kaur’s case, the appellants who were convicted under section 306 for ‘abetment of suicide’ contended that if section 309 dealing with ‘ attempt to commit suicide’ was unconstitutional, for the same reasons, section 306 which deals with ‘ abetment of suicide’ must be treated as unconstitutional. But the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of both section 306 and section 309.

In Gian Kaur’s case, the supreme court made it clear that ‘euthanasia’ and ‘assisted suicide’ are not lawful in India and the provisions of the IPC, 1860 get attracted to these acts. But, the question is whether Gian Kaur’s case, either directly or indirectly deals with ‘withdrawal of life support?

Fortunately, in the context of section 306(abetment of suicide), there are some useful remarks In gian kaur’s case , which touch upon the subject of withdrawal of life support. Before the Supreme Court, in the context of an argument dealing with ‘abetment’ of suicide, the decision of the House of Lords in Airedale N.H.S. Trust v. Bland , was cited. The Supreme Court referred to the distinction between withdrawing life support and euthanasia as follows:

Airedale’s case was a case relating to withdrawal of artificial measures for continuance of life by a physician. Even though it is not necessary to deal with physician assisted suicide or euthanasia case, a brief reference to the decision cited at bar may be made.

In the context of existence in the persistent vegetative state of no benefit to the patient, the principle of sanctity of life, which is the concern of the state, was stated to be not an absolute one. In such cases also, the existence crucial distinction between cases in which a physician decides not to provide, or to continue to provide, for his patient, treatment of care which could or might prolong his life, for example, by administering a lethal drug, actively to bring his patient’s life to an end, was indicated as under….”

But, it is not lawful for a doctor to administer a drug to his patient to bring about his death, even though that course is promoted by a humanitarian desire to end his suffering, however great that suffering may be. Thus, euthanasia is not lawful at common law.

Thus, in this effect, the supreme court, while making the distinction between euthanasia, which can be legalized only by legislation, and ‘withdrawal of life-support,’ appears to agree with the house of lords that ‘withdrawal of life support’ is permissible in respect of a patient in a PVS as it is no longer beneficial to the patient that ‘artificial measures’ be started or continued merely for continuance of life’. The court also observed that the principle of sanctity of life which is the concern of the state , was ‘not an absolute one’.