A Critical Analysis of Right to Live V. Right to Die in the context of Euthanasia in reference to Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug V Union of India Via a Socio-Legal Lens

We inhabit a society where people from different castes, races, religions, and nationalities coexist. However, one facet that we commonly share is ‘birth’ and ‘death’. The life of a person is chiefly considered and has been defined primarily in multiple international declarations as well as a fundamental right in the constitution of India. India, the hub of various religious beliefs, has always been against the practice of euthanasia considering life to be the gift of god where god can only take this irreplaceable gift away. Euthanasia or mercy killing is a procedure exercised to alleviate the affliction faced by individuals and propose a recourse for them to determine when they want to end their life. It is nowhere similar to suïcide and many countries have already legalized both forms of euthanasia I.e. Active and Passive. Those people who do not come forward in support of this are the ones who believe that poor people who are incapable of affording healthcare or people with physical disabilities will be discarded from society. They also think that people who are mentally challenged should be provided with help rather than asked to end their lives. They trust in the sanctity of life and efforts should be made to protect and extend it. On the other hand, a lot of people believe that this is a very personalized opinion and everyone should have the autonomy to decide what they desire for their well being which also includes their death. They do not challenge the supremacy of life but they believe that determining their formal death is a part of their right to life. The author of this research analysis wants to study the current status of Euthanasia in India, various judicial proclamations, and most importantly to apprehend where does ‘Right to Die’ stands in the light of the ‘Right to Life’.