The Supreme Court verdict allowing mercy killing of terminally-ill patients under strict guidelines through a process of petition before the high court for “passive euthanasia” has though set in an intensive debate on the issue, the analysis of the laws of some foreign countries done by top court might help in resolving the raging controversy. The most comprehensive law regulating euthanasia has been passed by Netherlands in 2002. The law known as “Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedure) Act, 2002” provides that “euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are not punishable if a doctor attending the patient acts in accordance with the criteria of due care,” the Supreme Court pointed out while giving its verdict on terminally-ill Mumbai nurse Aruna Shanbaug’s case.
As per the Dutch law, a written request from the patient has to be made and the matter is processed through an “extensive consultation” by the physicians to apply the approved methods of ending the life of a terminally-ill patient, which includes reporting the matter to “euthanasia review committee”.
The Dutch law also evolved from a case almost identical to Aruna, which is popularly known as “Postma case” of 1973 concerning a woman doctor, who had facilitated the death of her terminally-ill mother after her repeated request for “mercy killing” as she was not able to bear the agonising pain caused by her incurable disease.
Though the doctor was convicted by the court for her illegal act, but a fierce debate raged not only in Netherlands but in entire Europe on the issue, forcing the Dutch legislators to seriously ponder upon the matter and finally Netherlands Parliament passed the Act in April 2002, recorded the apex court bench of Justice Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra in their historic verdict. The most important feature of the Dutch law was that the patient should be at least 12 years old to understand the implications of any request for euthanasia but still the “consent” of his or her parents is mandatory.