'Passive euthanasia'? This term captures why media coverage of end-of-life care calls for special guidelines

This story has widely been reported with headlines like ‘Supreme Court allows first-ever case of passive euthanasia.’ Reading this, two kinds of thoughts emerge. ‘Oh, they chose death.’ Or a slightly better informed: ‘No, they let their son die.’ Both statements miss the point.

The term ‘passive euthanasia’ is a misnomer that obscures the legal position and misrepresents the facts. What the court permitted is the ‘withholding or withdrawal of medical treatment.’

In India, this process is allowed for specified conditions, including a persistent vegetative state or terminal illness. It applies when such patients have lost decision-making capacity and further treatment is futile. For persons with underlying conditions, withholding or withdrawal simply returns them to their natural course.

‘Passive euthanasia’ collapses an entire ethical debate into two misleading words. Yet, this shorthand persists.

Words as verdict: We live in a society where words are not merely descriptions; they are the means by which society hands down its verdicts. Their etymology represents the cultural sediment of generations.

The word ‘euthanasia’ is derived from a Greek term for ‘good death,’ an aspiration for all. Ask people what it means, and they will likely speak of induced death, painlessly and on compassionate grounds. In popular usage, it encompasses termination of life on request, mercy killing and assisted suicide.

Euthanasia has also evolved into multiple sub-categories: active or passive, involuntary or voluntary. While the academic, medical and legal communities argue about agency in such a decision, the wider public is found to arrive at a conclusion: passive euthanasia describes the death of someone on a decision taken by someone else. This perception is where the confusion lies.

Words can dominate minds: When families navigate end-of-life situations, language matters more than we realize. The term ‘euthanasia,’ whatever word precedes it, plants difficult questions in one’s heart. Am I killing my loved one? Is it not worth holding on to the slight hope of a miracle that might bring the person back to life?

These doubts are made heavier by news headlines that simplify complex decisions in dramatic phrases. They claim to be explanatory but can result in widespread misinformation.

Hindi news headlines such as ‘Pehli baar ichchhaamrityu ki ijaazat’ (literally ‘first time death-wish gets a nod’) are irresponsible .The casual cruelty of calling Harish a ‘zinda laash’ (living corpse) and use of disturbing images from his life when unwell strip him and his family of dignity. Such framings erase years of care, the emotional and legal journey of the family, and portray Harish as a mere inconvenience.

The consequences of misreporting: News sensationalization has real-world implications. An elderly woman in Karnataka living with colon cancer has requested the government to allow her the right to die with dignity. She is in severe pain but retains decision-making capacity. Legally, she can refuse any treatment, including life-support. What she needs is palliative care.

What she does not have is the correct information and India’s public discourse blurs the distinction between ‘active’ and ‘passive.’ While withholding treatment is allowed, its equation with ending a life is dangerous.

Return of the dead?: In the same week as the Harish Rana judgement, reports of a woman being ‘jolted back to life by a pot-hole after being declared brain dead’ flooded news channels. It was reported as a miracle.

While it was a heart-warming story of a woman staying alive, some channels placed it alongside Harish Rana’s persistent vegetative state. If reported details were accurate, the ‘miracle’ in this case was the earlier declaration of brain-death, if done by a low reading on the Glasgow Coma Scale, which can only indicate deep coma or complete unresponsiveness. There is wide consensus that brain death means death and there is no return from it.

When parallels are drawn with Harish Rana’s case, it promotes an unscientific belief: that waiting a little longer might bring someone back.

Use words responsibly: None of the misreporting we saw can be attributed to malice, but a misreading of facts is problematic, given how public opinion is shaped by what appears in the news media. As with all great powers, media power brings responsibility—for ethical and sensitive reporting in such cases. The difference between dignity and spectacle can be a single word.

India needs to establish standards for journalistic conduct while reporting cases of end-of-life care. Sensitivity standards exist for sexual harassment and suicide reports. We also need an end-of-life care vocabulary. What the media reports impacts the lives of people and must never work against the fundamental rights of dignity and autonomy. The Supreme Court set down a legal framework. Now the media must play its role. The law determines what is allowed, but words shape what people believe.

These are the author’s personal views.

The author is with the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.