Presentation on theme: "PROJECTS BY LAW STUDENTS Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission MADE BY:- NIKHIL GOYAL NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ORISSA BBA.LLB(1 ST YEAR)"— Presentation transcript:
PROJECTS BY LAW STUDENTS Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission MADE BY:- NIKHIL GOYAL NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ORISSA BBA.LLB(1 ST YEAR) email@example.com
RAJASTHAN STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION PROJECTS BY LAW STUDENTS UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF SECRETARY, Mr. Ravi Shankar Shrivastava (RAJASTHAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION) With best compliments RSHRC
RAJASTHAN STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION Under the guidance of Hon’ble Mr. justice N.K. jain (former chief justice of Madras & Karnataka High Court) Chairperson RSHRC Prepared by: Internship students of various law universities
Hon’ble Chairperson and Members of State Human Rights Commission are: Justice N.K Jain, Chairperson Members: Justice Jagat Singh Shri D.S.Meena Shri Pukhraj Seervi
Issues addressed 1. Euthanasia 2. Right to Die – A Constitutional Perspective 3. Right to Die: A Religious Answer 4. Right to Die: A Judicial View
EUTHANASIA Euthanasia (from the Greek ευθανασία meaning "good death": ευ-, eu- (well or good) + θάνατος, thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of ending a life in a manner which relieves pain and suffering. According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, the precise definition of euthanasia is "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering."Greekending a lifeHouse of LordsSelect CommitteeMedical Ethics
EUTHANASIA What is Euthanasia? Kinds of Euthanasia:- a)Passive Euthanasia b)Active Euthanasia
1. Active Euthanasia Something is done to end the patient's life 2. Passive Euthanasia Something is not done that would have preserved the patient's life
Active Euthanasia: Illegal. Passive Euthanasia: Legal.
In this landmark case Aruna Shanbaug V. Union of India where Aruna Shanbaug (63), a former nurse who remains in coma for over 37 years. The Supreme Court on 7 th March 2011, Monday rejected a petition for the mercy killing of Shanbaug, who has been in a ‘persistent vegetative state’ for the past 37 years after being sodomised by a hospital sweeper Nov 27, 1973. The court permitted PASSIVE EUTHANASIA if this was allowed by a High court Shanbaug remains under care in Mumbai’s King Edward Memorial (KEM) Hospital. Aruna Shanbaug V. Union of India, writ petition(Criminal) 115 of 2009
EuthanasiaBringing about a quiet and easy death SuicideWhen a person decides to end their own life. Assisted suicide / voluntary euthanasia When a person needs to be helped by a doctor or relative to end their own life, usually when they have a painful and terminal illness. A form of euthanasia. Non-voluntary euthanasiaWhen a person is unconscious or unable to decide for themselves (e.g. babies) and they are not kept alive because the quality of life would be so poor. Not striving to keep aliveWhen a person has an illness from which they will die, there comes a point when treatment is no longer given as it is simply prolonging the patient’s pain & suffering. Doctors would not continue to keep the person alive.
Article 21 of the constitution of India. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Related to person’s Right to life.
Right to Die – A Constitutional Perspective Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675 - held that ‘life’ here means more than mere animal-like existence. Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 - held ‘life’ should be interpreted in wide and far- reaching terms. Shantistar Builders v NK Totame, AIR 1990 SC 630 – held The Right to Shelter inclusive in right to life
The expression “life” used in Article 21 of the constitution of India includes a vast interpretation. It almost covers each basic and fundamental rights of the citizen but like Article 19 of the constitution of India which construes that Right to speak includes Right not to speak, it does not include within it RIGHT TO DIE.
Evolution of Right to Die in Indian Judiciary Dubal v State of Maharashtra, 1987 Cri LJ 743 P Rathinam v Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1844 Gian Kaur v State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 946
The Right to Die: a religious answer The religious answer for right to die issues is not often very favourable to the cause. The right to die debate is often mingled with questions about what right human beings have determining the “Will of God”
The Protestants view “Life is a gift from God” “The process of dying is spiritually important” “When people suffer on earth they entrust their future to the risen Christ” “All human lives are equally valuable”
The Roman Catholic view “Euthanasia as morally wrong” “Suffering and pain do not stop life being valuable” “Euthanasia is a rejection of God’s absolute sovereignty over life and death” But “it is morally acceptable to refuse extraordinary and aggressive medical means to preserve life”
A Hindu View Violation of KARMA A doctor should not accept a patient's request for euthanasia since this will cause the soul and body to be separated at an unnatural time. The result will damage the karma of both doctor and patient. Violation of AHIMSA Euthanasia cannot be allowed because it breaches the teaching of ahimsa (doing no harm).
An Islamic view “La darar wa la dirar fi’l islam” (No harm shall be inflicted or reciprocated in Islam) Hence there is no immunity to a physician who actively assists a patient to die. No recognition of individual rights; esssentially a divine decree. Both right to die and the right to be assisted in dying is ruled out. However, pain relief treatment that could shorten the life, which is administered to relieve physical pain and not to kill is permitted in Islamic law.
The Sikh view : Most Sikhs are against euthanasia, as they believe that the timing of birth and death should be left in God's hands. The Buddhist view : Buddhists are not unanimous on the notion of euthanasia and the teachings of Buddha do not explicitly deal with it. The Jewish view : Saving someone from pain is not a reason to kill them. But, it does not make doctors to make dying longer than it naturally would.
Right to die: Judicial View Emphasizing towards the society more rather than the individual merit. Judiciary is SILENT. No access to justice for such a grave issue.
Emphasizing towards the society more rather than the individual merit Why the debate arises? Many of the ethical disagreements about end-of-life decisions can be seen as resulting from differing ethical frameworks, esp. Kantian vs. utilitarian. Facts and circumstances: KEY ROLE to determine the individual merit.
Reasons For the silence of judiciary Misuse of the practice Terminally ill people recover and get well Big financial interests are often behind assisted suicide laws. We can come up with better ways of helping the dying besides assisted suicide
No access to justice Although in the landmark judgment of Aruna Shanbaug V. UOI, passive Euthanasia has been legalised in India but till date many petitions have been filed and are rejected without knowing the seriousness of the case in the name of humanitarian grounds. So therefore it can be said that there is no access to justice for the people for taking the plea of EUTHANASIA.
CONCLUSION The debate in India goes side by side to the ethical theories of Kantian and Utilitarian which deals with individual merit and society. The debate to legalise active Euthanasia in India stands on the same bank of the river like Whether society should be given importance or individual merit? QUESTION TO DEBATE?
One dies longing for death but death, despite being around is elusive This couplet was quoted by Justice Markandey Katju while considering the Aruna Shanbaug case.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Google Wikipedia Unicef Books of RSHRC British Law Journal
ACKNOWLEDGEMNT It gives me great pleasure to express my Gratitude to all concerned in helping me complete my project. I am very thankful to Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission for giving me a chance to do the internship here.