ABSTRACT

When it comes to euthanasia and related end-of-life decisions, many countries have had high
profi le cases. These thought-provoking incidents have attracted attention among large segments
of the population and have quite often been publicised abroad as well. It is useful to recall some
of these cases in the introduction to the present general report. The fi rst one is that it is cases
like these which have fuelled the national as well as the international debate on euthanasia.
These are not just legal ‘cases’. The examples provide stories full of human interest. In one way
or another, they elicit strong feelings among many people. 3 Electronic Journal of Comparative
Law, vol. 11.3 (December 2007), http://www.ejcl.org Consequently, the combined effect of these
situations occurring, on the one hand, and the public indignation it provokes on the other, is that
medical practice will quite often be affected and/or legal doctrine is reconsidered. In the French
and the Dutch example, it ultimately led to a redirection of statutory criminal law. Thirdly, the
examples are worthwhile because they enable us to articulate the values and principles which
are really at stake when dealing with medical end-of-life decisions. First and foremost, the right
to life itself comes to mind. It is obvious that this most fundamental of all human rights must be
the starting point for any discussion on the topic of euthanasia. The right to life may be the
natural point of departure, but it is also only one side of the coin. The dreadful examples
mentioned above make it abundantly clear that ‘human life’ means more than just a beating
heart and some remaining brain activity. Life in itself cannot adequately be understood without
taking into account the value of dignity. This begs the question whether some qualitative
elements could or should be included in the concept of human life as the object of legal
protection. And then there is the issue of autonomy. The autonomy of the individual human being
allows him to have some authority in matters of health and medical treatment. Here again: the
question is to what extent this authority can be exercised. How can limits to the right of self-
determination be defi ned and on what grounds can they be justified? In my perception, this state
of affairs has an important implication, which needs to be underlined at this early stage. The
examples referred to clearly indicate that many people have vastly diverging opinions on how
best to deal with these awkward situations. Strong feelings and heated arguments are the rule
rather than the exception. Yet it is important to emphasize that – generally speaking – all the
participants in the debate on euthanasia basically try to achieve the same goal, which is to
respect human life and dignity. As far as I am concerned, the inference is that their views may be
challenged and contested, but their motives can hardly be questioned. The content of the concept
has to be drawn from legal literature and from other parts of the legal systems. In some
countries, the definition of euthanasia has been developed in the case law, that is the bone of
contention in the project paper presented, not just limiting itself to the legal parameters on the
hard bound laws realting to euthanasia in India, but derives its roots on a more global and
transnational basis throughout the course of the project study through a strong doctrinal
approach at the study to be done in hand.