The Doctrine Of Double Effect And Its Implications For Euthanasia Cases In India
- IJLLR Journal
- Feb 21
- 2 min read
Anamika V Kumar, BA LLB, St. Josephs’s College of Law
ABSTRACT
In India, passive euthanasia where medical treatment is withheld or withdrawn to allow a terminally ill person to die, is legally permitted. In 2018, the Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia for patients in a permanent vegetative state. However there provisions in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which consider physician-assisted suicide and involuntary euthanasia (ending a patient's life without consent) as crimes. This creates challenges for medical practitioners who while prioritising patient welfare may inadvertently cause harm. Despite advancements in modern medicine human error or unforeseen side effects can occur when treatments are administered. Doctors who are often trained to always try to save lives may unintentionally harm patients. The doctrine of double effect differentiates between actions intended to relieve suffering and those intended to cause harm thereby providing a moral framework for end-of-life decisions. It forbids achieving good ends by wrong means but permits actions with both good and bad effects under certain conditions-such as when the act itself is not morally evil, the good effect does not result from the evil effect, only the good effect is intended and there is a reasonable explanation for the harm caused. While the doctrine of double effect hasn’t been recognised in statutory or judicial frameworks, it aligns with India’s ethical and cultural values. This research bridges the gap between moral theory and legal practice, proposing legislative reforms to integrate the doctrine of double effect under existing BNS sections or through a standalone end-of- life care legislation.
Keywords: doctrine of double effect, palliative care, euthanasia, Indian law, dedicated legislation, safeguards, ethical framework
