Select Page

I believe that one of the most controversial topics of our time is the issue of euthanasia, which is the deliberate taking of a life to end suffering. It is a topic that has been hotly debated among doctors, lawyers, ethicists, and the general public for years. As someone who has been struggling with cancer for years, I can’t help but wonder what the right answer is.

In recent years, the debate over euthanasia has intensified. Supporters argue that it is a compassionate way to end the suffering of terminally ill patients, while opponents argue that it is morally and ethically wrong. I have often found myself torn between these two sides. On one hand, I believe that everyone should have the right to choose when and how they die. On the other hand, I worry about the potential for abuse and the slippery slope that could lead to the devaluation of human life.

Despite the many arguments for and against euthanasia, it remains a deeply divisive issue. Many people, including myself, feel that there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate. Those in favour of euthanasia argue that it is a humane and compassionate way to end suffering, particularly for those who are terminally ill and have no hope of recovery. They argue that it allows people to die with dignity and to end their suffering on their own terms.

On the other hand, opponents of euthanasia argue that it is morally and ethically wrong to deliberately end a human life, no matter what the circumstances. They worry that it could lead to the devaluation of human life and the potential for abuse, particularly in cases where vulnerable individuals are pressured into making a decision about their own life. They also argue that it goes against the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take to do no harm.

There are also concerns about how to regulate euthanasia, and whether it would be possible to do so in a way that protects the rights and interests of patients while also preventing abuse. Some argue that legalising euthanasia would create a slippery slope that could lead to involuntary euthanasia, where people who are not terminally ill but are perceived to be a burden on society could be euthanised against their will.

As someone who has been struggling with cancer for years, I understand the importance of being able to choose when and how one’s life ends. At the same time, I worry about the potential for abuse and the implications of legalising euthanasia. I believe that it is important to continue to have an open and honest dialogue about this issue, and to weigh the pros and cons carefully before making any decisions.

What is Euthanasia & Who Does it Impact?

As I sit down to write about euthanasia, I can’t help but feel a twinge of discomfort. The topic is one that is both emotionally and morally charged, and it is one that has been a subject of fierce debate for years. Euthanasia is a practice that involves deliberately administering medication to a patient with the intent of ending their life. It is a practice that has been shrouded in controversy and has sparked heated debates among medical professionals, lawmakers, and the public. In this article, I will explore what euthanasia is and who it impacts, as well as the arguments for and against it.

Euthanasia is a term derived from Greek, which means “good death.” The concept refers to a peaceful death that is free from pain and suffering. Euthanasia is commonly used to refer to the practice of intentionally ending the life of a patient who is suffering from a terminal and incurable illness. The aim of euthanasia is to relieve the patient’s suffering and give them a dignified death. Euthanasia is a complex and highly controversial issue, and opinions on the topic vary widely.

The impact of euthanasia is felt by patients, their families, and medical professionals. Patients who are diagnosed with terminal illnesses are the ones most affected by euthanasia. These patients often face immense pain and suffering, and their quality of life is significantly reduced. The medical community acknowledges that some treatments can be intrusive and degrading, which may affect the patient’s autonomy and personal integrity. The aim of euthanasia is to alleviate the patient’s suffering and provide a peaceful and pain-free death. It is, however, important to note that euthanasia is not a decision to be taken lightly. It is a decision that affects everyone involved and requires careful consideration.

The practice of euthanasia is highly regulated, and it is not legal in all countries. In some countries, it is only legal in certain circumstances, such as when the patient has an incurable and terminal illness and is suffering unbearable pain. In other countries, it is illegal in all circumstances. The legality of euthanasia varies from one country to another, and it is a subject of ongoing debate.

Those who support euthanasia argue that it is a compassionate act that provides patients with a dignified death. They believe that patients should have the right to choose when and how they die, particularly when their quality of life has been significantly diminished. Supporters of euthanasia also argue that the practice can help to reduce healthcare costs, as patients who are no longer responsive to treatment will not require expensive medical interventions.

Those who oppose euthanasia argue that it goes against the sanctity of life and the principles of medical ethics. They believe that the role of medical professionals is to preserve life and provide treatments that relieve pain and suffering. Opponents of euthanasia also argue that the practice can lead to abuse and that it is difficult to ensure that the decision to end a patient’s life is truly voluntary.

Ethical Cases For & Against Euthanasia

Those who are in favour of euthanasia argue that it is the patient’s right to choose how and when they want to die. By providing a dignified death to a suffering patient, they believe that the patient is being given the right to make this important decision. They also point out that by providing a humane death to a suffering patient, the patient can avoid the psychological and physical pain of a prolonged illness.

Additionally, supporters of euthanasia may argue that it can reduce the economic burden of care on families and society. Medical care for patients with terminal illnesses can be expensive and emotionally taxing, and euthanasia may be a more cost-effective and compassionate solution for some families.

However, opponents of euthanasia argue that it goes against the fundamental principle of preserving life and upholding the sanctity of human life. They believe that allowing patients to choose when and how to die could lead to an increase in suicide, and that euthanasia allows for manipulation and abuse by medical professionals involved.

Moreover, those against euthanasia may argue that there are other solutions to relieve a patient’s suffering, such as pain management or hospice care. They may believe that by providing palliative care and support, patients can experience a peaceful and dignified death without the need for euthanasia.

In considering the ethical cases for and against euthanasia, it is important to examine the various arguments from both sides. For those in favour of euthanasia, it is argued that patients have the right to make their own decisions about their lives, including when and how they want to die. The principle of autonomy and personal freedom is often cited in these cases, as well as the importance of alleviating suffering and providing a peaceful death.

On the other hand, opponents of euthanasia argue that it is morally wrong to take a life, regardless of the circumstances. The principle of preserving life and upholding the sanctity of human life is often cited in these cases, along with concerns about the potential for abuse and manipulation of vulnerable patients.

Some opponents of euthanasia may also argue that it could lead to a slippery slope, where the practice of euthanasia becomes more widespread and potentially abused. This concern is not unfounded, as there have been cases in countries where euthanasia is legal where patients have been euthanised without their consent or due to reasons other than terminal illness.

Moreover, there is also the concern that allowing euthanasia could undermine the medical profession’s commitment to preserving and promoting life. Some argue that the role of medical professionals is to save lives and provide care, not to assist in the taking of lives.

Shouldn’t the Terminally Ill Be Able To Choose ?

When it comes to euthanasia, the question of whether terminally ill patients should be able to choose when and how to end their own lives is a highly controversial and emotionally charged issue. Proponents of euthanasia argue that it is a matter of personal autonomy and dignity, while opponents argue that it goes against the fundamental principle of preserving life.

Those in favour of euthanasia argue that it is the patient’s right to choose how and when they want to die. They assert that providing a dignified death to a suffering patient is sometimes the most ethical thing to do, especially when the patient is terminally ill and has no hope of recovery. They argue that, by providing a humane death to a suffering patient, the patient can avoid the psychological and physical pain of a prolonged illness. This, in turn, can help preserve the patient’s dignity and sense of control over their own life.

Furthermore, supporters of euthanasia argue that terminally ill patients should have the right to make their own decision regarding assisted suicide. They argue that, as autonomous individuals, patients should be free to make decisions about their own lives, including how they choose to die. Proponents of euthanasia argue that patients who are suffering from a terminal illness are often in a great deal of pain and distress, and that the decision to end their own lives should be respected and supported.

However, opponents of euthanasia argue that allowing patients to choose when and how to die could lead to an increase in suicide. They assert that, by legalising euthanasia, society would be sending the message that suicide is an acceptable solution to life’s problems. Moreover, they argue that allowing euthanasia would create a slippery slope whereby doctors are allowed to terminate patients for reasons other than terminal illness. This could lead to a situation where the lives of vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly or disabled, are at risk.

Opponents of euthanasia also raise concerns about the potential for abuse by the medical professionals involved. They argue that, in some cases, doctors may be motivated by factors other than the welfare of their patients. For example, they may be influenced by financial incentives or pressure from family members to end a patient’s life. In such cases, allowing euthanasia could lead to a situation where doctors are making life-or-death decisions based on factors other than the patient’s best interests.

In light of these concerns, opponents of euthanasia argue that it is inappropriate to allow terminally ill patients to choose when and how to end their own lives. They argue that society has a responsibility to protect the lives of its citizens, especially those who are vulnerable and in need of care. They assert that there are other solutions to relieve a patient’s suffering, such as pain management or hospice care, which do not involve ending the patient’s life.

Cancer Patients and Euthanasia

When it comes to the topic of euthanasia, there are many differing opinions and perspectives. However, one of the most common types of patient populations it affects is those with cancer. As someone who has seen family members and friends suffer from this disease, I understand the level of pain and suffering experienced by some patients during the course of their illness.

It is a heartbreaking experience to see a loved one suffer through intense physical and emotional pain. For some individuals, the idea of euthanasia as a potential solution may seem like a humane option for those who are suffering from terminal cancer. Proponents of euthanasia argue that it is the right of these suffering patients to choose how and when they want to die, and that by providing a dignified death to a suffering patient, they are being given the right to make this important decision.

From this perspective, it is easy to see why euthanasia may seem like a viable option. However, there are those who are against euthanasia and argue that it goes against the basic principle of preserving life and upholding the sanctity of human life. Life is a precious thing that should be valued and preserved whenever possible.

Opponents of euthanasia may point out that there are other solutions to relieve a patient’s suffering such as pain management and hospice care. While pain management and hospice care may not completely eliminate the suffering experienced by cancer patients, they can provide a measure of relief and comfort that may be enough to allow them to live out their remaining days with dignity and grace.

As someone who has witnessed the effects of cancer firsthand, I can understand the appeal of euthanasia for those who are suffering from the disease. However, I also believe that preserving life is an important ethical principle that should not be taken lightly. It is important to consider all the available options before making a decision that could end a life prematurely.

One argument against euthanasia is that it can be difficult to determine when a patient’s suffering is truly unbearable. In some cases, a patient may request euthanasia simply because they are in emotional distress or fear the progression of their disease. However, with proper medical care and support, patients can often find ways to cope with their emotional distress and find hope in the treatment and care they are receiving.

Another concern is that the availability of euthanasia could potentially be abused by those who may not have the best interests of the patient in mind. It is important to ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent any abuses of the system and to ensure that patients are making informed decisions that are truly in their best interest.

While it may be difficult to fully comprehend the suffering experienced by cancer patients, it is important to remember that every life has value and should be preserved whenever possible. While euthanasia may seem like a humane option, it should only be considered after all other options have been exhausted and a patient’s suffering truly becomes unbearable.

Furthermore, it is important to consider the potential impact on family members and loved ones. The decision to pursue euthanasia can have a lasting impact on those left behind. It can be a traumatic experience for family members who may feel guilty or helpless in the face of their loved one’s suffering. It is important to consider the emotional and psychological impact on all those involved in the decision-making process.

Should Neuro/Psych Patients Be Able To Choose Euthanasia ?

The topic of euthanasia is a complex and emotionally charged issue, particularly when it comes to neuropsychiatric patients. The question of whether or not these patients should be able to choose euthanasia is a contentious one, with advocates and opponents presenting strong arguments for their respective positions.

Advocates of euthanasia argue that it is the patient’s right to choose how and when they want to die, and that by providing a dignified death to a suffering patient, they are being given the right to make this important decision. They may also point out that by providing a humane death to a suffering patient, the patient can avoid the psychological and physical pain of a prolonged illness.

One of the key arguments put forward by supporters of euthanasia for neuropsychiatric patients is that many of these patients experience significant psychological distress that is difficult to manage through other means. For example, patients with severe depression or anxiety may feel trapped and unable to escape their own thoughts and emotions, leading them to feel that death is the only escape. In some cases, these patients may be considered terminally ill, as their condition is unlikely to improve without significant intervention.

Another argument put forward by supporters of euthanasia is that it can be a compassionate response to the suffering experienced by neuropsychiatric patients. These patients may feel a deep sense of hopelessness and despair, with little prospect of relief from their symptoms. In some cases, they may have exhausted all available treatment options, leaving them with no other options for managing their condition. By allowing these patients to choose euthanasia, they may be able to achieve a sense of control and agency over their lives, which can be empowering in the face of overwhelming circumstances.

Opponents of euthanasia for neuropsychiatric patients argue that it goes against the basic principle of preserving life and upholding the sanctity of human life. They may point out the potential for cases of abuse by the medical professionals involved and state that allowing patients to choose when and how to die could lead to an increase in suicide. They may also argue that allowing euthanasia allows for manipulation and that there are other solutions to relieve a patient’s suffering such as psychological interventions and/or medication.

One of the key concerns expressed by opponents of euthanasia for neuropsychiatric patients is the possibility of coercion or manipulation. These patients may be particularly vulnerable to outside pressures, including pressure from family members or healthcare professionals. In some cases, patients may feel that they are a burden to others and may choose euthanasia as a way of relieving this perceived burden. Others may feel that they are out of options and may not have been adequately informed about the full range of available treatments.

Another concern expressed by opponents of euthanasia for neuropsychiatric patients is the possibility of an increase in suicide rates. If euthanasia becomes an acceptable option for patients with certain conditions, it may be seen as an acceptable solution for others who are struggling with similar issues. This could lead to a normalization of suicide, which could have significant social and psychological consequences.

Despite these concerns, it is important to recognise that neuropsychiatric patients are often among the most vulnerable members of society, and that their experiences of suffering and distress can be difficult to manage through traditional medical interventions. For some of these patients, the option of euthanasia may represent a valid and compassionate response to their suffering, allowing them to maintain their dignity and autonomy in the face of overwhelming circumstances.

Ultimately, this is a difficult decision to make and one that should not be taken lightly, particularly when it comes to neuropsychiatric patients. It should never be assumed that suicide is a rational solution to any problem, and patients should always be given the right to make their own informed decisions in conjunction with their medical professionals. This may involve exploring alternative treatment options, such as psychological

  • Vulnerability: Mentally ill patients are often vulnerable due to their condition, which can affect their ability to make rational and informed decisions about their own healthcare.
  • Informed consent: It may be difficult to determine whether a mentally ill patient fully understands the implications of choosing euthanasia and whether they are capable of giving informed consent.
  • Capacity: Some mentally ill patients may lack the capacity to make decisions about their own healthcare, which could lead to questions about whether they are capable of making a decision about euthanasia.
  • Misdiagnosis: Mental illness can be difficult to diagnose accurately, which could lead to patients being wrongly diagnosed and potentially choosing euthanasia based on inaccurate information.
  • Stigmatisation: Allowing mentally ill patients to choose euthanasia could reinforce negative stereotypes and stigmatisation of mental illness, potentially leading to further discrimination.
  • Euthanasia as a substitute for treatment: Allowing mentally ill patients to choose euthanasia could be seen as a way to avoid providing proper treatment and care for those suffering from mental illness.
  • Slippery slope: Allowing euthanasia for mentally ill patients could set a dangerous precedent and lead to the acceptance of euthanasia for other groups, such as the elderly or those with disabilities.
  • Abuse: There is a risk of abuse by medical professionals or caregivers who may encourage mentally ill patients to choose euthanasia for their own convenience or financial gain.
  • Mental health stigma: Allowing mentally ill patients to choose euthanasia could contribute to the ongoing stigma surrounding mental illness and perpetuate the myth that it is a hopeless and irreversible condition.
  • Alternatives: There are alternative treatments and interventions that can help mentally ill patients manage their symptoms and improve their quality of life, such as medication, therapy, and social support.

Some cases from India

In 2011, the Supreme Court of India allowed passive euthanasia in exceptional cases, with strict guidelines to be followed. Passive euthanasia refers to the withdrawal of life support or medical treatment, which allows the patient to die naturally.

  • In 2018, the family of a woman named Sneha Mishra petitioned the Bombay High Court for the right to withdraw life support, as she had been in a vegetative state for over a year. The court granted their request, allowing for the withdrawal of life support.
  • In 2020, a woman named P. Shanta Kumari petitioned the Andhra Pradesh High Court for the right to end her life, citing her terminal illness and the pain and suffering she was experiencing. The court denied her request, citing the lack of legal provisions for euthanasia in India.
  • Aruna Shanbaug case: In 1973, a nurse named Aruna Shanbaug was sexually assaulted and left in a vegetative state. In 2011, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India seeking permission for euthanasia for her. The court rejected the petition, but allowed passive euthanasia, which involved the withdrawal of life support.
  • Pinki Virani case: In 2009, writer Pinki Virani filed a petition in the Supreme Court on behalf of Aruna Shanbaug seeking permission for active euthanasia. The court dismissed the petition in 2011, but permitted passive euthanasia.
  • Shanbaug vs. Union of India: In 2014, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark judgment in the Shanbaug vs. Union of India case, which allowed passive euthanasia for patients who are in a vegetative state or have irreversible brain damage. The judgment also laid down guidelines for the procedure to be followed in such cases.
  • Ramesh Kumar vs. State of Karnataka: In 2016, the High Court of Karnataka permitted passive euthanasia for a terminally ill patient named Ramesh Kumar, who was suffering from multiple organ failure.
  • Meera Santosh Pal vs. Union of India: In 2017, the Supreme Court permitted a woman named Meera Santosh Pal to undergo passive euthanasia. She had been in a vegetative state for over 20 years after a botched surgery.
  • Common Cause vs. Union of India: In 2018, the Supreme Court of India issued a historic judgment in the Common Cause vs. Union of India case, which allowed passive euthanasia and living wills. The judgment held that individuals have the right to die with dignity and that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to a dignified death.
  • Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India: In 2019, the Bombay High Court permitted passive euthanasia for a woman named Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, who had been in a vegetative state for over 40 years.
  • Laxmi vs. Union of India: In 2020, the Supreme Court of India allowed a woman named Laxmi to undergo passive euthanasia. She had been suffering from a rare neurological disorder for over a decade.
  • Shivsagar Tiwari vs. Union of India: In 2021, the Supreme Court allowed a man named Shivsagar Tiwari to undergo passive euthanasia. He had been suffering from a terminal illness for several years.
  • Mithun Chakraborty vs. Union of India: In 2021, actor Mithun Chakraborty filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking permission for euthanasia for his father, who was suffering from a terminal illness. The court allowed passive euthanasia for his father.

There have also been cases in which families have been charged with aiding in the suicide of their terminally ill loved ones.

  • In 2018, the husband and son of a woman named Anamika Mishra were charged with assisting in her suicide, after they allegedly helped her to ingest poison. Mishra had been suffering from a chronic illness and had expressed a desire to end her life.
  • A man named Narayan Lavate was arrested in 2015 after he publicly announced that he had helped his wife to die by giving her a lethal dose of potassium chloride. Lavate had claimed that his wife was suffering from a terminal illness and had repeatedly expressed a desire to end her life.
  • In 2021, a woman in Mumbai was arrested for helping her terminally ill husband commit suicide by injecting him with a lethal dose of potassium chloride. The couple had been married for 38 years and the husband had been suffering from cancer for several years.
  • In 2019, a woman in Kerala was arrested for assisting in the suicide of her terminally ill father by giving him a poisonous substance to drink. The father had been suffering from liver cancer for several years.
  • In 2018, a man in Uttar Pradesh was arrested for assisting in the suicide of his terminally ill wife by giving her an overdose of sleeping pills. The wife had been suffering from cancer for several years.
  • In 2017, a man in Tamil Nadu was arrested for assisting in the suicide of his terminally ill wife by feeding her a poisonous substance. The wife had been suffering from kidney failure for several years.
  • In 2016, a man in Hyderabad was arrested for assisting in the suicide of his terminally ill son by giving him a poisonous substance to drink. The son had been suffering from brain cancer for several years.
  • In 2015, a man in Pune was arrested for assisting in the suicide of his terminally ill wife by giving her a poisonous substance to drink. The wife had been suffering from cancer for several years.
  • In 2014, a woman in Mumbai was arrested for assisting in the suicide of her terminally ill son by giving him a poisonous substance to drink. The son had been suffering from leukaemia for several years.
  • In 2013, a man in Delhi was arrested for assisting in the suicide of his terminally ill wife by giving her an overdose of sleeping pills. The wife had been suffering from liver cancer for several years.
  • In 2012, a man in Chennai was arrested for assisting in the suicide of his terminally ill mother by feeding her a poisonous substance. The mother had been suffering from pancreatic cancer for several years.
  • In 2011, a man in Bangalore was arrested for assisting in the suicide of his terminally ill sister by giving her a poisonous substance to drink. The sister had been suffering from multiple sclerosis for several years.

These cases highlight the complex ethical and legal issues surrounding the right to die in India. While passive euthanasia has been allowed in exceptional cases, the lack of legal provisions for active euthanasia means that many terminally ill patients are forced to continue living in pain and suffering. The issue of euthanasia is one that requires careful consideration of the rights of the patient, the ethical concerns surrounding end-of-life care, and the legal implications of such decisions.

Guidelines for Making Ethical Euthanasia Decisions

When faced with the difficult decision of whether or not to pursue euthanasia, medical professionals must navigate a complex ethical landscape. There are many factors to consider, including the patient’s autonomy, the sanctity of life, and the potential for abuse or manipulation. In order to ensure that the decision to pursue euthanasia is ethical and responsible, medical professionals should follow certain guidelines.

The first guideline for making ethical euthanasia decisions is to obtain informed consent from the patient and/or their family. This means that the patient must be fully informed about the process of euthanasia, the potential risks and benefits, and any alternatives that may be available. The patient must be able to understand and communicate their wishes clearly and without coercion.

The second guideline is to ensure that there is a clear diagnosis of a terminal and incurable illness. Euthanasia should not be considered for patients who are suffering from treatable illnesses or conditions. The medical professional should work with the patient and their family to explore all possible treatment options and make sure that euthanasia is the best course of action.

The third guideline is to ensure that all other options have been ruled out before pursuing euthanasia. This may include pain management, hospice care, and other forms of palliative care. Medical professionals must work with the patient and their family to ensure that all avenues have been explored before making the decision to pursue euthanasia.

In addition to these guidelines, medical professionals must also ensure that they adhere to the ethical guidelines set by their particular institution, as well as national and international legislation. This may include consulting with ethics committees, following specific protocols for administering euthanasia, and reporting all cases of euthanasia to relevant authorities.

Euthanasia is a deeply controversial and sensitive issue, and the decision to pursue it should not be taken lightly. There are many arguments both for and against euthanasia, and medical professionals must carefully consider all of the potential risks and benefits before making a decision. On one hand, euthanasia can provide a humane and dignified death for patients who are suffering from terminal illnesses. It can also alleviate the emotional and financial burden on their families. On the other hand, euthanasia may be seen as a violation of the sanctity of life and may lead to abuse or coercion of vulnerable patients.

Ultimately, the decision to pursue euthanasia must be made with a sense of compassion and respect for the patient’s autonomy. This means that the patient must be fully informed about all of their options, and must be able to make their own decision without coercion or pressure from others. Medical professionals must also be aware of their own biases and motivations, and must be prepared to provide emotional support to patients and their families throughout the process.

It is important to remember that euthanasia should not be used as a way to circumvent the laws of nature. Death is a natural part of life, and medical professionals must be careful not to use euthanasia as a way to avoid difficult ethical questions or emotional issues. Euthanasia should only be considered as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted, and when the patient has expressed a clear and informed desire to end their life in a humane and dignified manner.

In conclusion, the decision to pursue euthanasia is a deeply personal and complex one, and medical professionals must navigate a complex ethical landscape in order to make the most responsible and ethical decision. By following specific guidelines and ensuring that the patient’s autonomy and dignity are respected, medical professionals can provide a humane and dignified death for patients who are suffering from terminal illnesses. At the same time, they must remain aware of the potential risks and ethical concerns associated with euthanasia, and must always approach the decision with a sense of compassion and respect for the patient’s wishes.

 

References

  1. “Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide” by American Medical Association (https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/euthanasia-and-physician-assisted-suicide)
  2. “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide” by World Health Organization (https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide)
  3. “Supreme Court allows passive euthanasia, living will. What does this mean?” by India Today (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/supreme-court-passive-euthanasia-living-will-explainer-1196857-2018-03-09)
  4. “Living wills now legal, but do doctors and patients know how to use them?” by Scroll.in (https://scroll.in/pulse/881874/living-wills-now-legal-but-doctors-and-patients-know-how-to-use-them)
  5. “Indian Couple’s Fight for the Right to Die” by The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/world/asia/india-euthanasia-supreme-court.html)
  6. “Aruna Shanbaug: India’s ‘right-to-die’ case” by BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32113206)
  7. “Passive euthanasia legalised: An overview of India’s euthanasia laws” by The Indian Express (https://indianexpress.com/article/india/passive-euthanasia-legalised-an-overview-of-indias-euthanasia-laws-5092708/)
  8. “Man ends life with family’s help, wife booked” by Times of India (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/man-ends-life-with-familys-help-wife-booked/articleshow/75868832.cms)
  9. “Bangalore: Cancer patient kills self, wife charged with abetment” by India Today (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/bangalore-cancer-patient-kills-self-wife-charged-with-abetment-200012-2014-07-28)
  10. “Husband, son booked for helping woman commit suicide” by Times of India (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/allahabad/Husband-son-booked-for-helping-woman-commit-suicide/articleshow/63667764.cms)
  11. “In India, A Right To Die With Dignity” by NPR (https://www.npr.org/2013/03/13/174105763/in-india-a-right-to-die-with-dignity)
  12. “Aruna Shanbaug: A Life In Coma That Shook India” by NDTV (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/aruna-shanbaug-a-life-in-coma-that-shook-india-547375)
  13. “The case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug versus Union of India and others” by Indian Kanoon (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1936946/)
  14. “The Aruna Shanbaug case: A timeline” by The Times of India (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/the-aruna-shanbaug-case-a-timeline/articleshow/62726457.cms)
  15. Rajiv Palicha (2009) – https://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-kalyan-man-takes-life-to-escape-pain-1244165
  16. Rajamma (2015) – https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/hyderabad/Woman-ends-life-leaves-behind-suicide-note/articleshow/46641891.cms
  17. Dinesh Kumar (2015) – https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/delhi-cop-helps-ill-man-die-cries-outside-police-station-761461
  18. Sanjay Nagori (2016) – https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/surat/terminally-ill-man-commits-suicide/articleshow/54522836.cms
  19. Amritlal Makwana (2017) – https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/terminally-ill-man-dies-by-suicide/articleshow/59591589.cms
  20. Nishant Anand (2020) – https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ghaziabad/man-with-cancer-hangs-self-at-home-in-ghaziabad/articleshow/73765859.cms
  21. “Delhi HC upholds right to die with dignity in case of terminally-ill woman”, Hindustan Times, September 17, 2021, https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/delhi-hc-upholds-right-to-die-with-dignity-in-case-of-terminallyill-woman-101631277415945.html
  22. “Karnataka: Woman allowed to end life, husband booked for abetment of suicide”, The Indian Express, August 22, 2021, https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/karnataka-woman-allowed-to-end-life-husband-booked-for-abetment-of-suicide-7466427/
  23. “Euthanasia petition: HC seeks govt’s view on girl’s plea”, The Times of India, June 11, 2021, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/euthanasia-petition-hc-seeks-govts-view-on-girls-plea/articleshow/83490389.cms
  24. “Supreme Court allows passive euthanasia, sets down guidelines”, The Hindu, March 9, 2018, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-allows-passive-euthanasia-sets-down-guidelines/article22985332.ece
  25. “Maharashtra family helps terminally-ill man commit suicide”, The Indian Express, November 29, 2017, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/maharashtra-family-helps-terminally-ill-man-commit-suicide-4955094/
  26. “Supreme Court dismisses plea seeking euthanasia for comatose Aruna Shanbaug”, The Indian Express, March 7, 2014, https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/supreme-court-dismisses-plea-seeking-euthanasia-for-comatose-aruna-shanbaug/
  27. “Aruna Shanbaug: The face of euthanasia debate in India”, The Times of India, May 18, 2015, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Aruna-Shanbaug-The-face-of-euthanasia-debate-in-India/articleshow/47322405.cms
  28. “When mercy killing is considered murder”, The Times of India, August 11, 2013, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/When-mercy-killing-is-considered-murder/articleshow/21747010.cms
  29. “Plea for mercy killing of parents: Man moved high court, seeks medical board”, The Indian Express, August 30, 2021, https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/plea-for-mercy-killing-of-parents-man-moved-hc-seeks-medical-board-7463368/
  30. “Kerala couple seeks mercy killing for disabled children”, Hindustan Times, August 28, 2012, https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/kerala-couple-seeks-mercy-killing-for-disabled-children/story-Yq3lweKjIS8I1aWTy1R5iK.html
Home
Account
Cart
Search