Euthanasia and it’s recent developments

What is Euthanasia?

The word euthanasia, originated in Greece means a good death. According to Cambridge dictionary the term euthanasia means ‘the act of killing someone who is very ill or very old so that they do not suffer any more’. It simply means deliberately ending a person’s life to relieve suffering and thus makes it highly controversial. In practice, only a handful of countries allow it under strict conditions. Most nations still prohibit euthanasia or assisted suicide, making it a subject of ongoing debate and legal change worldwide.

Types of Euthanasia

Euthanasia is the act of deliberately ending another person’s life to alleviate intractable suffering. In another words it is an assisted suicide which involves a person ending their own life with a doctor’s help. Euthanasia can be classified by consent and by action. It is voluntary when the patient requests it and involuntary when done against a patient’s wishes. It means when a patient cannot communicate and others decide on their behalf, it is sometimes called non-voluntary euthanasia. Procedurally, euthanasia is of two types active and passive. Active euthanasia means the doctor takes a positive step to cause death, for example, administering a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia means withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and allowing the patient to die, for example, turning off a ventilator.

Classification of Euthanasia

Quick Overview

• Origin: Greece – means “good death”
• Legal Status: Limited to few countries under regulated conditions
• Major Debate: Ethical, religious, legal, and human rights concerns
• Associated Term: Assisted suicide (doctor helps patient to end own life)

Evolution of Euthanasia Worldwide

Euthanasia has a long, contentious history. Ancient medical oaths (e.g. the original Hippocratic Oath) forbade physicians from giving lethal drugs, and for much of the 20th century euthanasia was taboo or explicitly banned in most countries. However, after mid-century ethical debates and activism, the first modern law came in the Netherlandsin 2002. Dutch law made euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide legal under strict conditions, that is terminal illness, unbearable suffering and with consent. Belgium followed in 2002, Luxembourg in 2009, permitting voluntary euthanasia. In 2015 the Colombian Constitutional Court decriminalized euthanasia, and in 2016 Canada passed a Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) law for terminally ill patients.

Many other jurisdictions have since changed policy: for example, Spain enacted a euthanasia law in 2021, New Zealand legalized assisted dying by public referendum, and Portugal’s parliament approved euthanasia in 2023. In the United States, Oregon became the first state to allow “death with dignity” in 1997, and as of 2024 ten states including Washington DC permit medical aid-in-dying for terminal patients.

Many other countries permit only passive euthanasia that is withdrawing care or none at all. For example, Switzerland (since 1942) allows assisted suicide (without physician involvement), and Mexico’s Supreme Court in 2021 struck down an assisted-suicide ban. Global trends show a gradual expansion of euthanasia or assisted dying laws: by 2025, countries across Europe, the Americas and Oceania have legalized some form of end-of-life choice.

India

Abetting suicide and Attempting suicide both are considered criminal acts under Indian law. In the year 1994, constitutional validity of Indian Penal Code Section 309 (now removed in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) was challenged in in the case of P. Rathinam vs. Union of India. The Supreme Court in its one of the landmark judgement declared that IPC Sec 309 is unconstitutional, under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the constitution of India.

In the year 1996, an interesting case of abetment of commission of suicide under section 306 of Indian Penal Code (now section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) came to Supreme Court in the case of Gian Kaur vs. State of Punjab. It was argued before the Supreme Court that the right to die should be recognized as part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, a person who abets the commission of suicide merely facilitates the exercise of that fundamental right, making their penalization a violation of Article 21.

This made the Supreme Court to rethink and to reconsider the decision of right to die. The matter was referred to a five judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India. The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die and upheld the constitutional validity of both section 306 (now section 108 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) and 309 (now removed in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) of Indian Penal Code by overturning its previous decision given in the case of P. Rathinam vs. Union of India.

The Supreme Court, in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009), reconsidered its stance on the issue of suicide. It observed that abetment of suicide, as defined under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), and attempt to commit suicide under Section 309 IPC (now removed in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) constitute two distinct offences. The Court held that Section 306 can exist independently of Section 309. It further noted that a person attempting suicide usually acts under depression and thus requires care and assistance rather than punishment.

Consequently, the Supreme Court recommended that Parliament examine the feasibility of deleting Section 309 IPC. Acting upon this suggestion, the legislature eventually removed the provision, and no corresponding section exists in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. In deciding upon the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court also considered the intricate issue of mercy killing. It explicitly disapproved of active euthanasia but accepted passive euthanasia, involving the withdrawal of life support, as lawful subject to stringent conditions and safeguards.

Later, in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), a five-judge Bench held that the right to die with dignity is part of the right to life under Article 21, and it explicitly permitted advance “living wills” and passive euthanasia for terminally ill or vegetative patients. The Court issued detailed guidelines for implementing this right through hospital medical boards and court oversight. Recently, on January 24, 2023, the Supreme Court streamlined those guidelines to make the process less cumbersome. The new rules reduced the number of required medical experts and the verification steps, setting a 48-hour limit for decisions, etc. In sum, India’s evolution has gone from near total prohibition toward a qualified acceptance of patient controlled, passive end of life options.

Recent Developments

• Uruguay: Uruguay’s parliament passed the “Dignified Death” law on Oct 15, 2025, legalizing physician-assisted dying for terminally ill adults. The Senate approved the measure by 21 out of 30 votes, after lengthy debate, making Uruguay one of the first Latin American countries to permit euthanasia. The law allows mentally competent adults with incurable, unbearable suffering to request a lethal prescription.
• Italy: In a first for Italy, where no national law exists, the region of Tuscany approved a right-to-die law on Feb 11, 2025. It regulates assisted suicide for incurably suffering patients as similar to Swiss law, requiring panel approval and respecting conscientious objection by doctors.
• France: While France has no full euthanasia law yet, in May 2025 the National Assembly voted to permit terminally ill patients to end life using lethal medication. The bill, backed by President Macron, passed the lower house and awaits Senate approval. If enacted, it would allow self- administration of life-ending drugs at the very end of a terminal illness.

Conclusion

Euthanasia remains one of the most sensitive moral and legal debates of our time, lying at the intersection of law, ethics, medicine, and human rights. Globally, many nations have shifted toward recognizing the individual’s right to die with dignity, emphasizing compassion and autonomy over rigid sanctity of life principles. Countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, and recently Uruguay have legalized euthanasia or physician-assisted dying, backed by strict safeguards such as multiple medical opinions, mental competency checks, and oversight mechanisms to prevent misuse.

In India, the approach has been more cautious yet progressive. The Supreme Court, in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018), recognized the right to die with dignity under Article 21 and permitted passive euthanasia through living wills, reaffirmed and simplified in its 2023 ruling. However, active euthanasia remains illegal, and the absence of clear legislation leaves gaps in practical enforcement. A comprehensive statutory framework could ensure uniformity, transparency, and protection for both patients and medical professionals.

Globally, while laws evolve to acknowledge autonomy in end-of-life decisions, moral, cultural, and religious objections continue to shape the discourse. The core challenge lies in balancing compassion with ethics and ensuring the right to die does not become a duty to die. Ultimately, euthanasia laws reflect humanity’s enduring struggle to harmonize suffering with dignity, choice with morality, and law with compassion. The future lies in crafting humane yet cautious legal systems that respect both the sanctity of life and the dignity of its inevitable end.