Supreme Court judge distinguishes between active and passive euthanasia

The favoritism betwixt “active” and “passive” euthanasia goes beyond the simplistic binary of “act” versus “omission”, Supreme Court justice Justice J.B. Pardiwala said connected Wednesday (March 11, 2026).

“The existent favoritism betwixt progressive and passive euthanasia lies not simply successful the quality of the conduct, i.e., acts oregon omissions, but besides successful the root of the harm that leads to death,” Justice Pardiwala said successful a judgment, upholding the withdrawal of beingness enactment to a 32-year-old man successful a persistent vegetative authorities for much than 12 years.

The justice characterised progressive euthanasia arsenic causing decease by introducing a new, outer bureau of harm, specified arsenic a lethal injection. “In specified cases, decease is not the effect of the patient’s underlying illness, but of an involution that sets a caller concatenation of events successful motion. It is for this crushed that progressive euthanasia is understood arsenic an involution that disrupts the earthy way towards death,” Justice Pardiwala observed successful the judgment.

Conversely, helium explained that passive euthanasia should beryllium understood arsenic allowing decease to occur. By withdrawing oregon withholding beingness support, the doc is not creating a caller hazard of death. Rather, the doctors are choosing to let the underlying fatal information to instrumentality its earthy people by nary longer continuing the aesculapian interventions that were artificially prolonging life. “The undeniable information is that the patient’s affliction, i.e., the underlying aesculapian condition, is not caused by immoderate enactment oregon omission of the doctor. Rather, the underlying information is owed to factors autarkic of the doc oregon their actions,” Justice Pardiwala said.

However, withdrawing attraction should not interruption the work of attraction a doc owes a diligent successful each circumstances. “The surrendering of immoderate aesculapian effort indispensable not beryllium astatine loggerheads with the work of attraction which joists each aesculapian action,” Justice Pardiwala emphasised.

The judgement said progressive euthanasia progressive a “positive, overt act” designed to curtail the earthy lifespan and extinguish life. “Under the mandate of Article 21, nary idiosyncratic tin beryllium deprived of their beingness but successful accordance with a process established by law. Consequently, for progressive euthanasia to beryllium legally permissible, determination indispensable beryllium an explicit legislative enactment authorising specified deprivation,” Justice Pardiwala observed.