Modi government to push for passive euthanasia

According to CPI (M) MP A. Sampath, Parliament's intervention is required on the issue as on February 25 this year as a larger bench of the apex court struck down former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju's judgment allowing euthanasia saying it was based on a "wrong premise".

Listen to Story

Advertisement

The Narendra Modi government's decision to decriminalise attempt to suicide by deleting Section 309 of the IPC from the statute book has made a strong case for allowing "passive euthanasia".

It means permitting patients living in coma or suffering from an incurable disease to refuse essential artificial medical support system as he or she does not want to prolong the agony. It also brings to strong focus what the state can do on "fast unto death" protests.

advertisement

"The right to end one's life is important but sensitive and needs to be debated by all stakeholders. The futility of continuing in a medically terminal state and the financial burden on the family obviously add to the urgency for a decision on the controversial subject," said CPI (M) MP A. Sampath.

Several human rights NGOs, which have knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court where the matter is pending, are also supporting the Parliamentarians. Coincidentally, the government's decision to scrap Section 309 came two days after Sampath had raised the issue in the Lok Sabha. "Next I would like to ask the government where it stands on euthanasia," he told Mail Today.

"Right to die with dignity is also a part of the right to liberty," said Kamal Jaiswal of Common Cause, which filed a petition in the SC asking for a law on the lines of the Patient Autonomy and Self-determination Act of the US, which allows living wills.

Stating that he and several MPs will push for a debate on the issue, Sampath said the Parliament's intervention is required as on February 25 this year as a larger bench of the apex court struck down former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju's judgment allowing euthanasia saying it was based on a "wrong premise". Katju's judgment had given thousands of patients in coma or suffering from an incurable disease the permission to end their agony by saying their parents, spouse or other relatives could take the important decision.