Right to Die

Its been a while. Welcome back.

Unfortunately, my comeback article is not going to be even remotely related to anything else I’ve previously written about. Its not even in the same ballpark.

I’ve always been a fan of constitutional law — so much so that if you could somehow access my searches on Wikipeida, you’d mostly see articles about landmark Supreme Court cases — whether from India or otherwise. The reason I’m specifically interested in just this single branch of government is because in many ways, it represents something very different from the other two branches of government. The legislature is supposed to respond to the will of the people. The executive is supposed to implement the laws passed by the legislature — within a measure of discretion.

But the judiciary is not an elected body — at least not in the same way that the legislature and the executive are. It is supposed to be insulated from the political process. It is supposed to be able to make decisions based on the law and the constitution, not on the whims of the people. This unaccountability(to the people, at least directly) makes the Judiciary perhaps the only forum that can meaningfully expand minority rights.

And the presence of an anti-majoritarian judiciary is perhaps the only way to balance the other two majoritarian branches of government.

And that is the case with the “Right to Die”. We have a majority who either ignores or actively approves penalizing those who’re already on their deathbed. It chooses to criminalize the act of dying — instead of ameliorating the terrible conditions these people are in, it chooses to prolong their suffering. It sentences them to a life of pain and misery — all while pretending to be a champion of human life.

Right to Life

We all have the right to life. What this means in practice is that you should be able to live your life as you please — so long as you don’t infringe on the rights of others. As long as you’re not convicted of a crime and are not otherwise restrained by the law, the government can’t detain you or otherwise restrict your freedom.

But the right to life doesn’t and should not mean “duty to live”. Right to life means that you should be able to live as you so please. If you decide to lock yourself in a room and refuse to come out, the government can’t order you to leave the room and “live” your life. Forcing someone to do something they don’t want to do is antithetical to the very pretext of this action — the right to life.

And so the argument flows — if you can’t force someone to live the way you determine is best for them, then you can’t force them to live at all. If someone wants to end their life — so be it. You cannot put a gun to their head and force them to live. Right to life isn’t really about living — it’s about the right to choose how to live.

The right to life grants freedom from state control — it is not a mandate for state-enforced existence.

Imagine this: if you don’t like the city you live in, you can simply move to a different city. You can choose to live in a different country. But what happens if you don’t want to live at all?

Or perhaps a more direct example: if you’re being treated for a disease, do you not have the right to refuse treatment? What if the rejection leads to your death? Does that mean the state will force you to accept treatment?

At what point do you accept that its your life and the state is not its arbiter?

Elizabeth Bouvia

Killing yourself might seem extreme. The idea of people — en-mass — killing themselves might seem even more so. But what’s actually extreme is the idea of forcing someone to live against their will.

Elizabeth Bouvia was almost completely paralyzed because of cerebral palsy at the age of 24. She wanted to die. She chose to end her life.

Instead of letting her die in peace, the hospital was extremely hostile and combative. When she refused to have food, the hospital staff forced a tube down her throat. She sued but the court ruled in favor of the hospital. In protest of this decision, she bit the tube so hard that it broke.

Following this, four attendants would hold her down while the tubing was inserted into her nose and liquids pumped into her stomach. She screeched and shouted but to no avail.

This is what the crowd against the right to die wants to force upon you. They cannot and will not help you when you’re alive. They don’t care about your life — far from it.

They will literally tie you with chains and force feed you — while in the same breath explaining how good life is, and how you should be grateful for it.

But why die?

This is perhaps the question that most people would ask when they hear about the right to die. Why would anyone want to die? Why would anyone in their right mind want to end their life?

But to even attempt to answer this question is a fallacy. A blanket statement that assumes that everyone wants to live is not only wrong but also harmful. The statement fails for a couple of reasons:

1. It ignores the fact that there is no consent in the act of birth. Unlike the act of dying — which employees the consent of the individual — the act of birth is not a voluntary act. No one chooses to be born. They simply are.

2. Death is(or should be) a choice. Individuals who are terminally ill often choose to end their lives rather than prolong their suffering. This is not them escaping from reality — it is them accepting the reality of their situation and choosing self respect over self denial.

Engaging in ideological quibble about what recoginizing right to die would mean for the society at large is a waste of time. The very purpose of having rights is to protect individual freedoms — not to be at the whims of what society deems is best for you.

The law

As things currently stand, a host of countries have legalized Active voluntary euthanasia — that is, individuals can consult their doctor and get a prescription for euthanasia. This includes countries like Canada, New Zealand, and Switzerland. The right to die isn’t absolute — in most these countries, there are strict guidelines and regulations that apply to the act of euthanasia. But the fact that it is legalized is a step in the right direction.

In countries like India, passive euthanasia is legalized — that is, you’re legally allowed to refuse treatment, even if it will lead to your death. The difference being that in such countries, you cannot actively seek euthanasia.

As you might’ve already guessed, in most of these countries, these rights came along because of the way the judiciary interpreted the right to life. In fact, India’s recognition of the right to die came much earlier than you’d expect. In 1994, The Supreme Court of India struck down Section 309 of the IPC that criminalized suicide.

This decision was eventually overturned in 1996, but as they say, the arc of history is long but bends towards justice. In 2018, the Supreme Court of India legalized passive euthanasia. Suicide is no longer a criminal offence in India.

Conclusion

None of us chose to be here. The fact that you’re reading this is not a consequence of your own choices but rather the result of the choices of your parents. I think its only fair that we should be able to choose how we want to leave this world.

This is not about glorifying death. I’m not here suggesting that we should all rush to the doctor and get a prescription for euthanasia. But if someone truly wants to end their life — for whatever reason — trying to stop them will cause more harm than good.

Long live the right to die.