Hierophant Against Euthanasia

1504 Words7 Pages

“There is a certain right by which we many deprive a man of life, but none by which we may deprive him of death; this is mere cruelty.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Right to die is a upright principle based on the belief that a human being is qualified to commit suicide or to endure volitional control of this right. It is often understood to mean that a person with a hindmost bug should be allowed to commit suicide or assisted suicide or to decline life-prolonging treatment, where a disease would otherwise protract their suffering to an selfsame result. The question of who, if anyone, should be accredit to make these decisions is often central to debate.
Hierophant commonly consociate the right to die with the idea that one 's body
…show more content…
It is an act of voluntarily or intentionally taking one’s own life. Suicide needs to be distinguished from euthanasia or mercy-killing. Suicide by its very nature is an act of self-killing or self-destruction, an act of terminating one’s own life spans without the aid or assistance of any other human agency. Euthanasia, on the other hand, involves the intervention of other human agency to end the life. Euthanasia is nothing but homicide, and unless specifically excepted it is an offence. A priori, an attempt at mercy-killing is not an attempt to…show more content…
Rathinam v. Union of India and Anr. where the Supreme Court has held that S.309 of IPC is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, as there exists under Art. 21 a "Right to Die". The court however rejected the contentions that Art.14 is violated on the ground that there was sentencing discretion. This view constituted an authority for the proposition that an individual has the right to do as he pleases with his life and to end it if he so pleases. A person cannot be forced to enjoy the right to life to his detriment, disadvantage or disliking. The court argued that the word "Life" in Article 21 means right to live with human dignity and the same does not merely connote continued drudgery. Thus, the court concluded that the right to live which Article 21 speaks of can be said to bring in its trail the right not to live a forced life. The bench also called for deletion of section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, labelling it as cruel, irrational which results actually in punishing an individual twice. Section 309, Indian Penal Code, according to the court violates Article 21 and is therefore void. This is necessary to humanize the law. In the opinion of the court, attempted suicide are a medical and a social problem and are best dealt by non customary measures. The court emphasized that attempt to commit suicide is in reality a cry for help and not for punishment. This radical view was challenged and could not last for
Open Document