The debate around the right to die with dignity has widely debated in India with legal, moral and medical meanings. Today, experts representing a wide range of backgrounds in 2025 in India are scattered in the nuances of inactive and active euthanasia, living vils and subcutaneous care.

In a historic 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court of India accepted the rights of passive euthanasia and patients to advance or ‘live will’. The verdict enabled terminally sick patients to refuse life support if their condition was found incurable.

The legal framework is still complex, the court called Parliament to enact a law on the matter.

Senior advocate Nisha Bhambhani pointed to legal ambiguities: “While the Supreme Court set the platform, we still need more accurate laws to effectively regulate euthanasia, so that moral medical practice is promoted.”

Moral and medical approach

In a nation where healthcare infrastructure is still not enough, especially in rural settings, life care becomes difficult. Smriti Rana, head of strategic programs and participation in Pallium India, highlighted the importance of subscription during the conversation:

“It is important to give good solutions to patients so that patients are not motivated for euthanasia out of lack of medical care.” He further said that the decision should be taken with the help of family and doctors.

While spiritual people provide a new angle. ISKCON monk and inspiring speaker Guru Gauranga Das responded to the sanctity of life: “Spiritally, life is a present. Instead of bringing further death, we have to work in such a way that people meet to live till their natural end.”

Chairman of Nephron Clinic, Dr. Sanjeev Bagai opposed the legalization of euthanasia in India in India.

He said that the permission of euthanasia, even in a controlled manner, would be prone to misconduct, especially in a country where medical infrastructure is unevenly advanced and lacks access to quality subscriptions.

He said, “India does not have a strong system to ensure the decision of life, especially in the economically weaker sections of the society, where family may be struggling with medical bills.

Dr. Bagai also indicated moral conflict for doctors, who swear on the hippocratic oath to save life, not kill them. In his view, subcutaneous care should be strengthened and patients should be provided with proper pain management rather than legalizing euthanasia.

Compare the right to die with other countries

Many countries have adopted different views for euthanasia. Scandinavian nations such as Sweden and Norway allowed physician-assisted to die in strict circumstances, focusing on patient autonomy. Countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada have legalized euthanasia with clear rules.

This increases moral concerns – should euthanasia be an option when healthcare itself is insufficient?

Panelists agreed that euthanasia is a sensitive subject, India should first strengthen its subscriber care systems and legal clarity. Smriti Rana covered the dilemma: ,The right to die is eventually associated with the right to live with dignity. If we ensure better healthcare, less people will feel the need for euthanasia.,

As India navigates this complex issue, a balance between legal, medicine, moral and spiritual perspectives is necessary to ensure that patients can be informed and compassionate end-life options.