Does the right to die with dignity entails legalization of advance medical directives? Discuss in the light of Article 21 of Indian Constitution and judgement(s) of the apex in this regard. (200 words)
Refer – Live mint
Enrich the answer from other sources, if the question demands.
IAS Parliament 7 years
KEY POINTS
· Advance Medical Directives – instructions issued by a person specifying what should be done to her in the event of a terminal illness, and who will decide if she herself is incapacitated from giving or withholding consent.
Article 21
· No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
· The right to life under this also includes the right to live with dignity.
· On the other hand, the Indian Penal Code criminalizes the commission of any act that is carried out with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death.
· It provides no exception for situations where terminally ill patients have consented to a specified course of action (i.e.) Advance Medical Directives.
· When no exception had been provided, the law forced the patients to live with pain and to rely on their kith and kin for support.
· Right to live with dignity implies, apart from a right to life, enjoyment of right to be free of physical interference.
· When they are in pain, dependent on others for support against their wishes, the right to live with dignity gets affected.
Judgements of SC
· Technology now in its advancing stage will prolong life even as the body shuts down against the onslaught of a deadly disease.
· The Supreme Court was acutely aware of this new reality and its recent decision revolved around the need to re-evaluate the relationship between technology and the meaning and quality of life.
· Only because of attaining technological advances, the States are not free to infringe on its citizen’s fundamental rights.
· SC held that the right not to accept medical treatment is essential to liberty.
· Additionally, it held that the right to live with dignity includes within it the obligation to smoothen the process of dying for terminally ill patients who have no hope of recovery.
· Accordingly, doctors who abide by the wishes of terminally ill patients expressed through advance directives are not guilty of having committed a crime or operating in violation of their ethical obligations as medical practitioners.
· The most common justification offered in support of invasive technological intervention is precisely that it is only for the benefit of the people that it targets.
· However, such arguments cannot override human freedom and human choice.
· Thus, the right to life and live with dignity entails legalizing advance medical directives which help patients to decide their own choice of treatment.
