Shaswat Mimani, National Law University, Jodhpur & Ish Dutt, Jindal Global Law School
Abstract
Euthanasia, in common English parlance, is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as “the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or a person who is in irreversible coma.” Its derivation comes from two Greek words ‘Eu’ and ‘Thanatos’ and the most literal translation for the same is ‘Good Death’. While at the outset, the meaning of euthanasia and the net result that prevails through the same can seem to be easily understood. It is a highly debated upon topic with a farrago underlying currents and factors stemming from an amalgamation of political, judicial and social perspectives and the intersectionality between the same in different permutations and combinations.
The two sides of the debate around euthanasia essentially have stemmed from two very distinct monoliths, while the proponents of the physician-assisted suicide (PAS) claim that an individual’s rights over their own body also entitles them to choose a painless death and moreover, to die with dignity. The contrary belief to the same lies in the principle that a doctor/physician role in the death of a individual suffering from irrevocable disease still violates the truer legal tenants of the medical profession and further violated the society’s functioning.
