Q1. The Supreme Court already legalised passive euthanasia through Aruna Shanbaug and Common Cause. Why are you still campaigning? Isn't the law already there?
Ans: Those judgments were important steps but they left the vast majority of suffering people with nothing. Passive euthanasia only allows for the withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment, like removing a ventilator or stopping a feeding tube. And even that required Harish Rana's family to fight two courts over thirteen years before a single person could access it.
But what about the person who is not on a ventilator?
What about someone enduring daily agony from a degenerative condition, or someone whose suffering is psychological and existential rather than purely medical?
For that person, the conscious, speaking, suffering adult , the law offers nothing.
Nothing except watching them suffer until their body finally gives out, or until they resort to a violent, self-inflicted death.
In India, the Supreme Court distinguished between active and passive euthanasia, stating that the main distinction is that in "active" something is done deliberately to end life whereas in "passive" something is not done.
That procedural distinction has no moral or constitutional basis. We are fighting for something the Court has never yet granted: the right of every competent adult to choose to end their suffering on their own terms, not just patients in specific medical categories, but any person whose existence has become unbearable to them.
Q2. What exactly are you asking for? Give us the simplest possible version.
Ans: We are asking for one thing: that every competent adult in India has the legal right to choose to end their life through voluntary active euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide and that the State is obligated to make that option accessible, peaceful, and dignified.
Right now, active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are illegal in India under Indian Penal Code 302, 304 and 306.
A doctor who compassionately helps a suffering patient die at that patient's explicit request can be prosecuted for murder. We want that criminalisation removed. We want the State to make a peaceful exit available to any competent adult who chooses it, without forcing them to justify their suffering, obtain a medical diagnosis, wait through arbitrary periods, or undergo mandatory counselling. The suffering person's own informed, voluntary and competent decision is sufficient. That is the entire argument.
Q3. Why does this right exist even for people who are not terminally ill? Why should someone who is "just depressed" have access to this?
Ans: This is the question that gets to the very heart of our petition and we want to be direct rather than evasive.
Our petition is rooted in one foundational truth: no one consented to being born. Existence was imposed on every one of us. The State did not ask our permission before we were brought into this world. It therefore cannot claim the authority to force us to remain in that existence when we find it unbearable, regardless of whether that unbeatability has a medical label attached to it.
Think about what it means to say that only people with certain diagnoses qualify. It means the State is sitting in judgment over whose pain is "real enough." It means someone with advanced cancer qualifies but someone who has spent thirty years in unrelenting psychological agony does not. That is not equal protection. That is discrimination based on the category of suffering rather than its severity or reality.
The global evidence supports this position. Belgium has allowed euthanasia since 2002 for both terminal and non-terminal conditions, including severe mental illness and dementia.
The Belgian Euthanasia Act allows legally competent adults experiencing "constant and unbearable physical or mental suffering that cannot be alleviated" to request euthanasia. The Belgian case provides compelling evidence against the slippery slope argument. While theoretical concerns justify the inclusion of safeguards, empirical evidence does not support fears of unchecked expansion or abuse.
We do not accept that the State has the authority to tell a competent adult that their suffering does not qualify for relief. The competent adult is the only authority on their own suffering.
Q4. What is the difference between what you are asking for and ordinary suicide? Aren't you just making suicide easier?
Ans: This is one of the most important distinctions we need to make clearly.
What we are asking for is not "easier suicide." What we are asking for is a fundamentally different kind of death, one that is medical, supervised, peaceful, instant and chosen after a period of calm, competent reflection. The person who takes their own life in a violent crisis and the person who has made a sustained, considered, free decision to exit unbearable suffering are not in the same situation. They must not be treated as if they are.
The current law does not prevent people from dying. Every single day, approximately 450 to 500 people in India die by suicide. We did not stop those deaths. We only ensured they happened in terror and pain, alone, with whatever was available like a rope, a bottle of pesticide, a railway track.
What we are asking for is that those people have a dignified option available to them instead.
Furthermore, research from countries with legal assisted dying shows something counterintuitive: having access to a peaceful exit actually gives some people the courage to keep living. Knowing that suffering is not a permanent sentence, that there is a door if things become truly unbearable, reduces despair rather than increasing it. The absence of that door is itself a source of suffering.
Q5. Won't this be misused? What stops families from pressuring elderly or vulnerable relatives into choosing death to save money on care or protect inheritance?
Ans: This concern is legitimate and we take it seriously. But we need to reframe how we think about it.
The answer to the risk of coercion is not to build a wall of conditions and waiting periods that effectively denies the right to everyone. Because that wall does not stop coercion. It just stops access. It punishes the genuinely suffering person for the theoretical misconduct of someone else.
The answer is to ensure the choice is genuinely voluntary and competent. The line we draw is simple: competence and voluntariness. A person being pressured by family is not making a voluntary decision. Coercion and undue influence already vitiate consent in every domain of Indian law, contract law, succession law, medical consent law. That principle carries over here.
And the empirical evidence from countries that have done this is clear. Two decades of research from the Netherlands show no evidence of a slippery slope. The frequency of ending of life without explicit patient request did not increase over the studied years.
Studies show no evidence of a slippery slope. The frequency of ending of life without explicit patient request did not increase over the studied years. There is also no evidence for a higher frequency of euthanasia among the elderly, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill.
The current law, which forces everyone into violent unregulated deaths with zero oversight, does far more damage to vulnerable people than a legal, transparent system ever would.
Q6. Every major religion in India holds life as sacred. How do you respond to people of faith who believe this is morally wrong?
Ans: We deeply respect every person's right to hold and practice their faith. And we want to make something very clear: this petition does not ask anyone to do anything against their beliefs. A person of faith who believes only God should determine the moment of death is completely free to live by that belief for their entire life. Nothing in this petition changes that.
What this petition argues is that one person's religious belief cannot be used by the State as a reason to impose suffering on someone else who does not share that belief. The Constitution of India is a secular document. It does not permit one faith's interpretation of life to govern the bodily sovereignty of citizens who hold different beliefs.
Every major tradition in India like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism — places compassion at its absolute centre. Jain leaders, a powerful group in India, say the Constitution protects fasts and people have the right to decide to die with dignity. This argument has led to a debate over the right-to-die issue in India.
Forcing a human being to continue enduring suffering they desperately want to be free of, while denying them any peaceful means of relief, is not an act of compassion by any religious tradition. It is an act of control. We are asking that the law respect both the person who believes suffering must be endured and the person who believes they have the right to be free of it.
Q7. What about mental health? Won't this make suicide easier for people going through a temporary crisis?
A: We want to separate two things that constantly get conflated in this conversation.
The right we are arguing for applies to competent adults making a considered, voluntary, and informed decision. A person in the acute phase of a mental health crisis who cannot currently make a stable long-term decision is not the person this petition addresses. Competence is the standard. A person in crisis by definition does not meet that standard.
Second and this is critical , we refuse to use the existence of mental health crises as a reason to deny relief to people who are not in crisis but are enduring long-term, sustained, genuine suffering. These are categorically different situations. A person who has lived with severe, treatment-resistant suffering for twenty years and has made a calm, sustained, deliberate decision about their existence is not in a crisis. They are exercising autonomy. The law must treat them differently.
The Belgian experience demonstrates that assisted dying laws can include non-terminal psychiatric conditions with appropriate safeguards and without evidence of significant misuse, addressing concerns about the slippery slope argument.
The evidence from Belgium specifically shows that empirical evidence does not support fears of unchecked expansion or abuse in euthanasia cases. The slippery slope argument should be regarded as a speculative myth rather than a substantiated fact.
Q8. What are the specific laws you want changed?
Ans: The primary legal obstacles are provisions within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the successor to the IPC. In India, active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide is a straight infringement of the Indian Penal Code under the ambit of murder, death by negligent act, suicide and abetment to suicide.
We are asking the Court to read down these provisions so they do not apply to voluntary assisted dying that is, dying that is requested explicitly and voluntarily by a competent adult, carried out with the intention of ending suffering and not motivated by any unlawful purpose.
We are also asking the Court to make a constitutional declaration under Articles 14, 19, and 21 that the right to exit suffering is a fundamental right, so that no future legislature can re-criminalise it without confronting the constitutional question directly.
Q9. The Supreme Court said in Common Cause that the right to die with dignity exists. Isn't that enough?
A: No. And here is exactly why.
The Supreme Court's decision in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) made it clear that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution gives people the right to die with dignity. However, passive euthanasia still needs court approval before it can happen, which raises questions about access and the emotional toll it takes on families.
The Common Cause judgment recognised the right to die with dignity only in the context of withdrawing life support for patients who are already unconscious or dying. It did not recognise the right of a conscious, competent person to actively choose a peaceful death. It did not address psychological or existential suffering. And it left in place all the criminal provisions that prevent doctors from actively helping a patient die.
Harish Rana's case is the proof. His family had to fight for thirteen years under the framework Common Cause created. That is not a right. That is an obstacle course. We are asking the Court to take the next step that its own logic already demands.
Q10. India has massive socioeconomic inequality. Poor families will pressure elderly parents to choose death to save money on care. The vulnerable will be coerced.
A: This concern deserves to be taken seriously and we do take it seriously. But the empirical evidence completely inverts this argument.
Studies show no evidence of a slippery slope. The frequency of ending of life without explicit patient request did not increase over the studied years. There is no evidence for a higher frequency of euthanasia among the elderly, people with low educational status, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, or minorities compared with background populations.
If anything, data consistently shows that it is people with more resources, education, and awareness who access assisted dying. The poor and vulnerable are not being coerced into it — in most countries, they struggle to access it at all.
However, we do acknowledge a real concern from Canada's experience: people in poverty with chronic illness may seek MAID because their circumstances, not just their diagnosis, make life unbearable. This is precisely why our petition argues that India must simultaneously invest in mental health infrastructure, palliative care, and social safety nets. The right to exit suffering must coexist with a serious, funded state commitment to alleviating suffering. You do not imprison a person in suffering to make a political point about healthcare gaps. Fix the healthcare system. And also recognise the right.
Q11. Won't legalising this lead to a slippery slope where we end up euthanising anyone who is inconvenient?
A: The slippery slope is the most frequently cited argument against this reform. It is also the argument with the least empirical support.
Studies focusing on the slippery slope assumption rarely focus on data. A common concern is that allowing voluntary active euthanasia for some specific conditions would result in a so-called slippery slope, suggesting that once euthanasia is permitted for specific conditions, it may lead to broader, less ethically acceptable practices. However, empirical investigations do not attest the existence of a slippery slope.
The Belgian case provides compelling evidence against the slippery slope argument, which has often been invoked to oppose legislation expanding individual rights. While theoretical concerns justify the inclusion of safeguards, empirical evidence does not support fears of unchecked expansion or abuse in euthanasia cases. The slippery slope argument should be regarded as a speculative myth rather than a substantiated fact. Policymakers should prioritize designing thoughtful, well-regulated frameworks informed by evidence rather than being deterred by unfounded concerns.
When driving caused accidents, we did not ban cars. We built the RTO. When wills were forged, we did not abolish inheritance. We created the Indian Succession Act.
A framework with a clear standard competence and voluntariness, is not a slope. It is a floor with guardrails. The slippery slope is not an argument against the right. It is an argument for building a good framework. Which is exactly what we are asking for.
Q12. Doctors are trained to heal and preserve life. Aren't you asking them to violate the Hippocratic tradition?
A: The Hippocratic tradition is not a monolithic or unchanging standard. Medical ethics has evolved continuously, informed consent, patient autonomy, do-not-resuscitate orders, withdrawal of life support, palliative sedation, all of these represent significant departures from the original paternalistic model where the doctor decided everything.
Proponents of physician-assisted suicide feel that an individual's right to autonomy automatically entitles him to choose a painless death. The opponents feel that a physician's role in the death of an individual violates the central tenet of the medical profession.
We acknowledge this is a genuine debate within medicine. Our response is this: no individual doctor is compelled to participate. Any physician with a conscientious objection retains the complete right to decline but must refer the patient to a willing provider. The petition asks only those willing physicians who want to offer this compassion to willing patients are not criminalised for doing so.
Physicians seem to adhere to the criteria for due care in the large majority of cases. It has been shown that the majority of physicians think the euthanasia Act has improved their legal certainty and contributes to the carefulness of life-terminating acts.
Legalisation does not corrupt medicine. It brings these decisions which are already happening in the dark into a transparent, accountable and humane framework.
Q13. What about palliative care? Can't we just invest in that instead of legalising death?
A: Yes, to palliative care. Absolutely and urgently yes. Our petition explicitly asks the Court to direct funded, time-bound investment in palliative care and mental health alongside the right to exit suffering. These two things are not in opposition. They are complementary.
But even the best palliative care has limits. There are forms of physical, psychological, and existential suffering that no amount of medication or care can adequately address. And even if palliative care could eliminate all physical pain, it cannot address the suffering of a person who simply does not want to continue existing in a state they did not choose and cannot bear. Offering palliative care as the only option is still a form of compulsion. It says: "You must accept our solution to your suffering. You may not choose your own."
The countries with the most developed assisted dying frameworks like the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada are also countries with the most developed palliative care systems. These practices coexist. They strengthen each other. India needs both. Not one instead of the other.
Q14. India is not ready for this. We don't have the infrastructure or trained professionals.
Ans: "India is not ready" has been said about every significant legal reform this country has ever made the Right to Information Act, environmental protection laws, consumer protection laws, transgender rights. The answer was always the same: build the infrastructure, train the professionals, create the systems. Not: deny the right indefinitely.
Consider what "not ready" means in practice right now. India currently has no regulated framework for the 450 to 500 people who die by suicide every single day. There is no oversight. No training. No compassion. No documentation. The status quo is not "safe and controlled." It is violent and completely unregulated. A legal framework ,even an imperfect one creates accountability, training requirements, oversight and documentation that currently does not exist at all.
Building readiness and recognising rights are parallel processes, not sequential ones. You do not wait until infrastructure is perfect to recognise a constitutional right. You recognise the right and build the infrastructure simultaneously. That is what Parliament is for once the Court sets the constitutional framework.
Q15. What happens after the petition gets enough signatures?
A: We will file a Public Interest Litigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court or High Court of India. The PIL will present the full constitutional arguments the non-consent to birth argument, the autonomy and dignity arguments, the equal protection arguments, the Section 309 contradiction, and the argument that the current criminalisation of assisted dying constitutes enforced suffering in violation of Article 21.
The signatures are not symbolic. They demonstrate to the Court that this is not a fringe concern but a genuine, widespread demand from Indian citizens for constitutional recognition of a fundamental right. Courts do not operate in a vacuum. Public opinion and documented citizen support matter.
We will also be asking the Court to direct Parliament to enact comprehensive legislation within twelve months so that the constitutional framework becomes practical reality on the ground as quickly as possible.
Q16. What if someone changes their mind after requesting assisted death?
A: They have the absolute right to do so and the system must protect that right completely. The right to exit suffering is a right not an obligation. A person who requests assisted dying and then changes their mind faces no consequence whatsoever. The request is withdrawn. Nothing happens.
This is standard in every country with an operating framework. The person must give express consent immediately before the procedure is carried out. A change of mind at any point, for any reason, at any stage, ends the process immediately. This is not a bureaucratic obstacle it is a fundamental protection of the very autonomy the system is built on.
Q17. Is this movement only for educated or urban people? What about rural India where people may not even understand these concepts?
A: This is one of the most important questions we can be asked and we welcome it.
Our movement is emphatically for every Indian both urban and rural, educated and not, economically privileged and not. Suffering is not an urban phenomenon. It does not require an education. It does not need a postal code.
The accessibility argument actually strengthens our case. Right now, the absence of a legal framework means that dying in peace is available only to those with resources, those who can travel to Switzerland, those who can afford prolonged legal battles, those who have educated families willing to fight courts. The poor person in rural India has nothing. A legal framework, with state-funded facilities and accessible infrastructure, is the only thing that makes this right genuinely universal. We are asking for it to be a right, not a privilege.
Q18. How is this different from the Nazi euthanasia programme? Isn't there a dangerous historical precedent here?
A: This comparison is made frequently and it must be addressed directly and honestly.
The Nazi euthanasia programme was involuntary, racially motivated, state-imposed murder of people who did not consent and were not suffering in any way that requested relief. It was the opposite of everything this movement stands for. Calling our petition comparable to Nazi euthanasia is not just factually wrong, it is a profound insult to the people who suffered under that programme and to the people suffering today who are asking for a voluntary, compassionate choice.
The word that separates our petition from every historical abuse of euthanasia is the same word that appears in our title: Voluntary. The moment coercion enters, it is no longer euthanasia, it is murder. Our entire petition is built on the inviolability of voluntary, competent, free consent. Every country that has legalised voluntary assisted dying has done so with this as the foundational principle, and none of them have produced anything resembling the historical abuses raised in this comparison.
The historical argument is not an argument against voluntary euthanasia. It is an argument for ensuring that the framework is genuinely voluntary. Which is exactly what we are building.
Q19. What do you say to someone who lost a family member to suicide and finds this campaign painful or offensive?
A: First, we say we are deeply sorry for your loss. The grief of losing someone to suicide is one of the most devastating forms of grief there is, and it deserves to be acknowledged with complete seriousness and compassion.
Second, we want to be honest with you about why we believe this movement honours rather than diminishes your loved one's memory. The people who die by suicide in India today do not die the way this movement is asking for. They die violently, alone, in terror, without medical support, without peace, without dignity. They die that way because the law gave them no other option. Our movement is asking for something that might have given your loved one a different experience, a peaceful door, a medical setting, a dignified exit, surrounded by those they chose to have with them.
We are not glorifying death. We are grieving the deaths that happened and demanding that if and when someone has made a clear, considered, competent decision, they deserve better than what the law currently offers.
Q20. What is your single most important message to every person watching this?
A: Five hundred people will die by suicide in India today. Not peacefully. Not painlessly. Not with dignity. With ropes and poison and railway tracks and fire because the law denied them a peaceful door. We did not stop those deaths. We only stopped them from dying well.
Twenty-two countries have already answered this question with evidence, compassion, and courage. In every single one, the feared catastrophe did not happen. What happened instead was quieter and far more important: people who had lived in terror of an uncontrollable, violent death finally felt free. Not because they all chose to die but because they knew, if it ever became truly unbearable, there was a door that belonged to them.
We are asking India to build that door. Sign the petition. Share it. Talk about it at your dinner table tonight. This might be the most important conversation India is not yet having.