Right to Life vs. Right to Die: Legal Perspectives on Mercy Killing

Euthanasia—have you ever heard of this word? Some of you might be wondering what it actually means. Simply put, euthanasia means intentionally ending a person’s life to relieve suffering, usually in cases of serious illness.

When I first read about it, a question immediately came to my mind: Does this really exist? Is it actually practiced in any country? And the answer is—yes, it does.

So today, I want to talk about some interesting and thought-provoking facts about euthanasia. In one word, it can be described as a “mercy killing,” though the reality behind it is far more complex.

At the very beginning, I want to make the concept clear. Euthanasia is mainly classified in two ways: based on action and based on consent. Based on action, it is divided into active and passive euthanasia. Based on consent, it can be voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary.

Let’s focus on the two main types: active and passive euthanasia.

Active euthanasia involves taking direct action to cause a person’s death. But how does it work? It usually involves giving a lethal injection or administering substances that intentionally end the patient’s life.

On the other hand, passive euthanasia means allowing a person to die by withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. In this case, no direct action is taken to cause death; instead, medical support is stopped, and the patient is allowed to pass away naturally.

As you can imagine, these two methods create a lot of ethical and legal conflicts.

Legally, active euthanasia is illegal in most countries. Passive euthanasia, however, is accepted in some countries, but only under strict conditions.

From a legal perspective, euthanasia is often discussed in relation to the right to life and personal liberty.

 

If we look at Bangladesh, euthanasia—whether active or assisted suicide—is not legally allowed. Under the Penal Code of 1860, causing death, even with the patient’s consent, is considered a criminal offense. Doctors or individuals involved can face charges such as culpable homicide or even murder.

There is also a strong ethical and religious context. Since Bangladesh is a Muslim-majority country, euthanasia is generally viewed as contradictory to Islamic values, as well as moral and legal principles.

Although there are ongoing debates among legal professionals and scholars about whether terminally ill patients should have the right to die, no law or Supreme Court ruling in Bangladesh currently permits euthanasia.

If we move to our neighboring country, India, the situation is slightly different.

In India, passive euthanasia is legal under strict guidelines, while active euthanasia remains illegal. In 2018, the Supreme Court of India recognized the “right to die with dignity” as part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This also allowed the concept of living wills and the withdrawal of life-support in certain cases.

There have been some landmark cases in India that brought euthanasia into public discussion.

One of the most well-known cases is the Aruna Shanbaug vs. Union of India case. Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse who remained in a vegetative state for 42 years after being brutally assaulted in 1973. She suffered severe brain damage and was kept alive through feeding tubes. Her case sparked a nationwide debate on euthanasia. Although the Supreme Court rejected the plea to allow her to die, her case played a crucial role in shaping India’s passive euthanasia laws.

Another significant and recent case is Harish Rana vs. Union of India (2026). Harish Rana had been in a permanent vegetative state for over 12 years after a severe accident. His parents struggled emotionally and financially while caring for him and repeatedly approached the courts.

 

In March 2026, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India allowed the withdrawal of his life-support system. This became the first direct court-approved case of passive euthanasia in the country. It not only highlighted the legal framework but also raised deep emotional and ethical questions in society.

These cases are heartbreaking, but they also force us to think deeply.

What do we truly believe about euthanasia? Is it an act of compassion, or does it go against the fundamental value of life?

There is no easy answer. Every perspective carries its own truth, its own emotion, and its own moral weight.

But one thing is certain—this debate reminds us of our responsibility as a society. We must build a world where care, dignity, and support are never out of reach. Where no one feels abandoned in their suffering. Where the value of life is not only in living, but in living with dignity.

And maybe, before we judge the concept of euthanasia, we should first ask ourselves—

Are we doing enough to reduce the suffering that makes people even think about it?

 

*Writer: Tarin Ahmed Soite: Co-founder & Senior Executive, Juristico.