The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21, the 'Right to Life', to include the 'Right to die with dignity', making it an integral part of End-of-Life Care. This means an individual has the right to refuse medical treatment or choose passive euthanasia when facing unbearable suffering in their final stages. However, this right is not absolute; it is limited by strict judicial and medical oversight to prevent misuse and ensure the patient's true wishes are respected, especially in cases where they are unable to communicate. It explicitly *does not* extend to active euthanasia or suicide.

End-of-Life Care faces significant accessibility challenges in India primarily due to the lack of a comprehensive legislative framework. This legislative vacuum often leads to decisions being influenced by external factors like financial distress or inadequate insurance coverage, rather than solely the patient's best interest. Many families struggle with the high costs of prolonged medical care, and without clear legal backing, hospitals may be hesitant to withdraw life support even when medically appropriate, fearing legal repercussions. The Kerala model's success highlights that community-based palliative care, integrated with government support, is crucial but largely absent elsewhere.

An 'Advance Directive' or 'Living Will' is a crucial legal document that allows an individual to pre-state their wishes regarding medical treatment, including the acceptance or refusal of life-sustaining treatment, should they become terminally ill and unable to make decisions in the future. This empowers patient autonomy by ensuring their preferences for comfort, dignity, and quality of life are respected even when they are unconscious or incapacitated. It removes the burden of difficult decisions from family members and medical staff, aligning care with the patient's expressed will.

A comprehensive law on End-of-Life Care aims to fill the current legislative vacuum, providing a clear, uniform framework for passive euthanasia and advance directives, which are currently governed by Supreme Court guidelines. It would clarify legal liabilities for medical professionals, standardize the decision-making process, and address funding mechanisms for palliative care. Challenges to enactment include the sensitive ethical and moral debates surrounding the 'right to die', potential misuse concerns, and the need to balance individual autonomy with societal values. Political will and achieving consensus among diverse stakeholders also pose significant hurdles, as evidenced by the two decades of legislative inaction since the Law Commission's 2006 report.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21, the 'Right to Life', to include the 'Right to die with dignity', making it an integral part of End-of-Life Care. This means an individual has the right to refuse medical treatment or choose passive euthanasia when facing unbearable suffering in their final stages. However, this right is not absolute; it is limited by strict judicial and medical oversight to prevent misuse and ensure the patient's true wishes are respected, especially in cases where they are unable to communicate. It explicitly *does not* extend to active euthanasia or suicide.

End-of-Life Care faces significant accessibility challenges in India primarily due to the lack of a comprehensive legislative framework. This legislative vacuum often leads to decisions being influenced by external factors like financial distress or inadequate insurance coverage, rather than solely the patient's best interest. Many families struggle with the high costs of prolonged medical care, and without clear legal backing, hospitals may be hesitant to withdraw life support even when medically appropriate, fearing legal repercussions. The Kerala model's success highlights that community-based palliative care, integrated with government support, is crucial but largely absent elsewhere.

An 'Advance Directive' or 'Living Will' is a crucial legal document that allows an individual to pre-state their wishes regarding medical treatment, including the acceptance or refusal of life-sustaining treatment, should they become terminally ill and unable to make decisions in the future. This empowers patient autonomy by ensuring their preferences for comfort, dignity, and quality of life are respected even when they are unconscious or incapacitated. It removes the burden of difficult decisions from family members and medical staff, aligning care with the patient's expressed will.

A comprehensive law on End-of-Life Care aims to fill the current legislative vacuum, providing a clear, uniform framework for passive euthanasia and advance directives, which are currently governed by Supreme Court guidelines. It would clarify legal liabilities for medical professionals, standardize the decision-making process, and address funding mechanisms for palliative care. Challenges to enactment include the sensitive ethical and moral debates surrounding the 'right to die', potential misuse concerns, and the need to balance individual autonomy with societal values. Political will and achieving consensus among diverse stakeholders also pose significant hurdles, as evidenced by the two decades of legislative inaction since the Law Commission's 2006 report.