Common Cause vs. Union Of India Case (2018)

The case of Common Cause vs. Union of India 2018 marked a turning point in Indian law when passive Euthanasia was legalized, and the concept of living came across. This case is all about individual freedom to make choices about their medical treatment. Before this case, there were continuous arguments and discussions on whether people had the right to refuse life-prolonging treatment or not. But after this case was filed by a registered society named Common Cause, the Supreme Court decided that people have the right to live with dignity and also the right to die with dignity by giving terminally ill patients the right to control their medical treatment under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In this article, we will dive deep into the Common Cause v. Union of India case, the arguments presented, and how the court arrived at its judgment.

Case Brief

Key Facts Of The Common Cause vs. Union Of India Case (2018)

1. A registered NGO wrote letters to the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to discuss the issue of passive Euthanasia. But the government didn't respond to their letters.
2. In 2005, the NGO filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution; the main aim was to make "living wills" and passive Euthanasia legal in India.
3. The NGO argued that a person's right to live with dignity continues until their death. Which means they also have the right to die with dignity. They explained modern medicine may keep the patients alive but is unnecessary, which leads to continuous suffering for the patients and their families.
4. The petitioners also wanted the law to allow "living wills." This means that a person who has constant pain and suffering can decide to stop the medical treatment and die peacefully. This living will also give family members the legal right to stop medical treatment if the person's condition becomes unbearable.

People Also Read : What is the right to dignity and decency?

Issues

• Does Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life, also include the Right to Die?
• Is there a difference between passive Euthanasia and active Euthanasia, and should passive Euthanasia be allowed based on a patient's living will?
• Does a person have the right to refuse medical treatment, including the removal of life-saving equipment?

Arguments In The Common Cause vs. Union Of India Case (2018)

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• Everyone should be allowed to make their own decisions in life, including how they want to live or die.
• It's better to let someone die than to make them suffer with painful treatments and live unnecessarily when there's no chance of recovery.
• Modern medicine can keep people alive even when there's no hope of recovery, which causes suffering for both the patient and their family.
• When someone has a serious illness and can't be cured with unbearable pain, then they should be allowed to die with dignity. Families often ask for this because it's hard to see someone alive with pain, which leads to emotional and financial pain.
• The law already allows people to say no to medical treatment, even if it could keep them alive longer. Which means passive Euthanasia is possible.
• Letting terminally ill people die can also help with organ donation and saving others's lives. So passive Euthanasia not only lets people die peacefully but also helps others in need of organ transplants.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The 'Right to Life' under Article 21 is a natural right that everyone gets at birth. Euthanasia or Suicide both are the unnatural way to end life. So, it goes against the idea of the right to life because the right to life doesn’t include the right to die.
• Allow Euthanasia would slow down efforts to find new treatments and cures for terminal illnesses. If Euthanasia is allowed, then there will be less focus on finding cures in the future.
• The government has a duty to protect life, and Euthanasia would go against a doctor's responsibility to save their patient's life.
• Euthanasia would weaken society's respect for the value of life.
• There are other options also available, such as stopping active treatment while still giving pain relief to make patients more comfortable.

Judgment In The Case Of Common Cause v. Union Of India (2018)

The Supreme Court of India came up with a judgment that a person has the complete right to live and die with dignity, and it's a part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This means that life-support machines can be removed for those patients who are terminally ill and incurable. Also, the court allowed people to choose not to be kept on artificial life support and understand the importance of creating a " living will" for such crucial decisions. The court set guidelines on how to create and use " Advance Directives (living wills)" to make passive Euthanasia legal.

Conclusion

Passive Euthanasia is one of the sensitive and controversial topics because it comes with many complicated issues and goes against many laws. There are two groups of people: The first group believes that life is a gift from God and doesn't give the right to die, and the second group focuses on the issue of consent on whether terminally ill patients can end their lives. Despite all these beliefs and discussions, the court has been made in favour of Euthanasia because it's beneficial for society as part of the Right to Life under Article 21. We hope this article helps you know everything about this case and that the final judgment ensures that people have the right to live or die with dignity.