They appealed to the Supreme Court and contended that ‘right to die’ be included in Article 21 of the Constitution and any person abetting the commission of suicide by anyone is merely assisting in the enforcement of the fundamental right under Article 21 hence their punishment is violation of Article 21. The accused were convicted in the trial court and later the conviction was upheld by the High Court. In 1996, an interesting case of abetment of commission of suicide (IPC Sec 306) came to Supreme Court 5. The Supreme Court declared that IPC Sec 309 is unconstitutional, under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the constitution in a landmark judgement 4. In 1994, constitutional validity of Indian Penal Code Section (IPC Sec) 309 was challenged in the Supreme Court 4.

In India abetment of suicide and attempt to suicide are both criminal offences. The objective is to discuss the subject of euthanasia from the medical and human rights perspective given the background of the recent Supreme Court judgement 3 in this context. Here we argue this complex issue from both the supporters and opponents’ perspectives, and also attempts to present the plight of the sufferers and their caregivers. This debate cuts across complex and dynamic aspects such as, legal, ethical, human rights, health, religious, economic, spiritual, social and cultural aspects of the civilised society. Request for premature ending of life has contributed to the debate about the role of such practices in contemporary health care. Euthanasia encompasses various dimensions, from active (introducing something to cause death) to passive (withholding treatment or supportive measures) voluntary (consent) to involuntary (consent from guardian) and physician assisted (where physician's prescribe the medicine and patient or the third party administers the medication to cause death) 2, 3. The word euthanasia, originated in Greece means a good death 1.

Life after life book review guardian