Is Euthanasia a Fundamental Right?
Few questions in modern constitutional discourse evoke as much moral discomfort and philosophical complexity as the debate on euthanasia. At the heart of the issue lies a deeply human dilemma: if the right to life is fundamental, does it also include the right to die with dignity? As medical science prolongs life beyond suffering, and as families struggle to watch loved ones endure irreversible pain, the question has moved from academic theory to moral urgency. India’s legal position has evolved, yet the debate remains far from settled.
In 2018, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India declared that the right to die with dignity is indeed a part of the right to life under Article 21. The Court recognised passive euthanasia and upheld the legality of advance directives, or “living wills.” On paper, this marks a constitutional acknowledgment of autonomy. But the deeper question persists: is euthanasia truly a fundamental right
guaranteed by the Constitution? Or is it merely a judicial accommodation for exceptional circumstances?
To answer this, one must examine the philosophy behind Article 21. The right to life is not a right to mere animal existence; it is a right to dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty. It protects the freedom to make intimate decisions—whether about one’s body, privacy, reproduction, or identity. If a terminally ill person, trapped in unbearable suffering with no possibility of recovery, seeks an end to their agony, it is difficult to argue that the State should deny them that choice in the name of protecting life. A right that forces individuals to endure indignity ceases to remain a right; it becomes a constraint.
Those who oppose euthanasia fear a slippery slope: coercion of the elderly, misuse by families, or misinterpretation by medical professionals. These concerns are real and cannot be dismissed lightly. However, the answer to misuse cannot be a blanket prohibition. It must be a framework that safeguards choice without enabling exploitation. A regulated mechanism—with medical boards, judicial oversight, and transparent procedures—can protect both autonomy and vulnerable individuals.
In fact, the absence of a clear, humane legal framework has historically pushed desperate families into moral and legal grey zones. Many end-of-life decisions are already being made informally, quietly, and without accountability. Legal recognition of euthanasia does not create a new practice; it simply brings an existing reality into a system of supervision and compassion.
But the larger point is this: if autonomy is the cornerstone of fundamental rights, the right to decide one’s manner of dying cannot be excluded. No other individual, institution, or State authority experiences a person’s suffering as intimately as they do. A government can regulate processes, but it cannot dictate endurance.
Yet, it is equally important to acknowledge a crucial nuance: recognising euthanasia as a fundamental right does not imply that the State must encourage or normalize it. It simply means that the State cannot criminalize a person’s choice to end unbearable, medically irreversible suffering. The protection lies not in the act, but in the principle—respect for human dignity.
India’s legal journey on euthanasia is still incomplete. Living wills remain poorly implemented. Hospitals lack uniform protocols. Many doctors fear legal repercussions. Families remain confused about their rights. Unless India enacts a comprehensive end-of-life law, the constitutional recognition of dignity risks remaining a symbolic promise rather than an accessible right.
Ultimately, the debate on euthanasia is not about death—it is about dignity. It is about acknowledging that autonomy does not vanish when illness becomes terminal. It is about compassion in the truest sense: allowing individuals to make deeply personal decisions without fear of criminality or moral policing.
So, is euthanasia a fundamental right? If dignity, autonomy, and liberty have meaning, the answer must be yes. The right to live with dignity must include the right, in rare and extreme circumstances, to choose a dignified end.
