Active Euthanasia/ Medical Will / Advance Medical Directive - Covid 19, Mucormycosis, Cancer, auto immune disorders
The pandemic has shaken all of us to the very core and challenged our core belief.
In this write up, I have taken concluding excerpts from Constitution Bench Judgment of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2018.
Personally, I feel both Active and Passive Euthanasia should be allowed in India and patients should have the right to decide whether they should terminate their life ( Covid 19 / mucormycosis/ cancer/ auto immune disorders …. Etc ). The latest refusal disallowing writ petition of an 81 year old widower suffering from incurable, irreversible rhuematic and other medical issues for active euthanasia, in my humble opinion is nothing but a prolongation of his insufferable pain.
At the outset, I declare that suicide is illegal, unlawful and an act of Cowardice. I do not support suicide as life is a miracle in motion. Respect it.
I am in favour of assisted medical active euthanasia under supervision of medical practitioner. There should be dignity in death.
Should India allow Active Euthanasia under present emergency of
global pandemic?
I discuss 2 judgments one of Supreme Court and one of Bombay High Court.
You will also learn procedure of registering an ADVANCE MEDICAL
DIRECTIVE (Medical Will).
Read on.
Common
Cause(A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2018) 5 SCC 1.
MAJORITY VIEW OF HMJ DEEPAK MISRA, THEN CJI AND HMJ KHANWILKAR.
“ …………….. para 191. In our considered opinion, Advance Medical
Directive would serve as a fruitful means to facilitate the fructification of
the sacrosanct right to life with dignity. The said directive, we think, will
dispel many a doubt at the relevant time of need during the course of
treatment of the patient. That apart, it will strengthen the mind
of the treating doctors as they will be in a position to ensure, after being
satisfied, that they are acting in a lawful manner. We
may hasten to add that Advance Medical Directive cannot operate in abstraction.
There has to be safeguards. They need to be spelt out. We enumerate them as
follows:-
(a) Who can execute the Advance Directive and how?
(i) The Advance Directive
can be executed only by an adult who is of a sound and healthy state of mind
and in a position to communicate, relate and comprehend the purpose and
consequences of executing the document.
(ii) It must be voluntarily
executed and without any coercion or inducement or compulsion and after
having full knowledge or information.
(iii) It should have
characteristics of an informed consent given without any undue influence
or constraint.
(iv) It shall be in writing clearly stating
as to when medical treatment may be withdrawn or no specific medical treatment
shall be given which will only have the effect of delaying the process of death
that may otherwise cause him/her pain, anguish and suffering and further put
him/her in a state of indignity.
(b) What should it contain?
(i) It should clearly
indicate the decision relating to the circumstances in which withholding
or withdrawal of medical treatment can be resorted to.
(ii) It should be in specific terms and the instructions must be absolutely clear and unambiguous.(iii) It should mention that the executor may revoke the instructions/authority at any time. Executor here means the patient.
(iv) It should disclose that
the executor has understood the consequences of executing such a document.
(v) It should specify the
name of a guardian or close relative who, in the event of the executor
becoming incapable of taking decision at the relevant time, will be authorized
to give consent to refuse or withdraw medical treatment in a manner consistent
with the Advance Directive.
(vi) In the event that there
is more than one valid Advance Directive, none of which have been revoked, the
most recently signed Advance Directive will be considered as the last
expression of the patient‘s wishes and will be given effect to.
(c) How should it be recorded and preserved?
Obligation of Judicial
Magistrate
(i) The document should be
signed by the executor in the presence of two attesting witnesses,
preferably independent, and countersigned by the jurisdictional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC) so designated by the concerned
District Judge [application before District
Courts in format of WILL.]
(ii) The witnesses and the jurisdictional JMFC shall record their
satisfaction that the document has been executed voluntarily and without any
coercion or inducement or compulsion and with full understanding of all the
relevant information and consequences.
(iii) The JMFC shall preserve one copy of the document in his
office, in addition to keeping it in digital format.
(iv) The JMFC shall forward one copy of the document to the
Registry of the jurisdictional District Court for being preserved.
Additionally, the Registry of the District Judge shall retain the document in
digital format.
(v) The JMFC shall cause to inform the immediate family members
of the executor, if not present at the time of execution, and make
them aware about the execution of the document.
(vi) A copy shall be handed over to the competent officer of the
local Government or the Municipal Corporation or Municipality or Panchayat,
as the case may be. The aforesaid authorities shall nominate a competent
official in that regard who shall be the custodian of the said document.
(vii) The JMFC shall cause to handover copy of the Advance
Directive to the family physician, if any.
(d) When and by whom can it be given effect to?
(i) In the event the
executor becomes terminally ill and is undergoing prolonged medical treatment
with no hope of recovery and cure of the ailment, the treating physician, when
made aware about the Advance Directive, shall ascertain the genuineness and
authenticity thereof from the jurisdictional JMFC before acting upon the same.
(ii) The instructions in the document must be given due weight by
the doctors. However, it should be given effect to only after being fully
satisfied that the executor is terminally ill and is undergoing prolonged
treatment or is surviving on life support and that the illness of the executor
is incurable or there is no hope of him/her being cured.
The obligation of the
Hospital
(iii) If the physician treating the patient (executor of the
document) is satisfied that the instructions given in the document need to be
acted upon, he shall inform the executor or his guardian / close relative, as
the case may be, about the nature of illness, the availability of medical care
and consequences of alternative forms of treatment and the consequences of
remaining untreated. He must also ensure that he believes on reasonable grounds
that the person in question understands the information provided,
has cogitated over the options and has come to a firm view that the option
of withdrawal or refusal of medical treatment is the best choice.
(iv) The physician/hospital where the executor has been admitted
for medical treatment shall then constitute a Medical Board consisting of the
Head of the treating Department and at least three experts from the fields of
general medicine, cardiology, neurology, nephrology, psychiatry or oncology
with experience in critical care and with overall standing in the medical
profession of at least twenty years who, in turn, shall visit the patient in
the presence of his guardian/close relative and form an opinion whether to
certify or not to certify carrying out the instructions of withdrawal or
refusal of further medical treatment. This decision shall be regarded as a
preliminary opinion.
(v) In the event the Hospital Medical Board certifies that the instructions
contained in the Advance Directive ought to be carried out, the
physician/hospital shall forthwith inform the jurisdictional Collector about
the proposal. The jurisdictional Collector shall then immediately constitute a
Medical Board comprising the Chief District Medical Officer of the concerned
district as the Chairman and three expert doctors from the fields of general
medicine, cardiology, neurology, nephrology, psychiatry or oncology with
experience in critical care and with overall standing in the medical profession
of at least twenty years (who were not members of the previous Medical Board of
the hospital). They shall jointly visit the hospital where the patient is
admitted and if they concur with the initial decision of the Medical Board of
the hospital, they may endorse the certificate to carry out the
instructions given in the Advance Directive.
(vi) The Board constituted by the Collector must beforehand
ascertain the wishes of the executor if he is in a position to communicate and
is capable of understanding the consequences of withdrawal of medical
treatment. In the event the executor is incapable of taking decision or
develops impaired decision making capacity, then the consent of the guardian
nominated by the executor in the Advance Directive should be obtained regarding
refusal or withdrawal of medical treatment to the executor to the extent of and
consistent with the clear instructions given in the Advance Directive.
(vii) The Chairman of the Medical Board nominated by the Collector,
that is, the Chief District Medical Officer, shall convey the decision of
the Board to the jurisdictional JMFC before giving effect to the decision
to withdraw the medical treatment administered to the executor. The JMFC shall
visit the patient at the earliest and, after examining all aspects, authorise
the implementation of the decision of the Board.
(viii) It will be open to the executor to revoke the document at
any stage before it is acted upon and implemented.
(e) What if permission is refused by the Medical Board?
(i) If permission to
withdraw medical treatment is refused by the Medical Board, it would be open to
the executor of the Advance Directive or his family members or even the
treating doctor or the hospital staff to approach the High Court by way of writ
petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution. If such application is filed before the High Court, the Chief Justice of the said
High Court shall constitute a Division Bench to decide upon grant of
approval or to refuse the same. The High Court will be free to constitute
an independent Committee consisting of three doctors from the fields of general
medicine, cardiology, neurology, nephrology, psychiatry or oncology with
experience in critical care and with overall standing in the medical profession
of at least twenty years.
(ii) The High Court shall hear the application expeditiously after
affording opportunity to the State counsel. It would be open to the High Court
to constitute Medical Board in terms of its order to examine the patient and
submit report about the feasibility of acting upon the instructions contained
in the Advance Directive.
(iii) Needless to say that the High Court shall render its
decision at the earliest as such matters cannot brook any delay and it shall
ascribe reasons specifically keeping in mind the principles of "best
interests of the patient".
(f) Revocation or
inapplicability of Advance Directive
(i) An individual may withdraw or alter the Advance Directive at
any time when he/she has the capacity to do so and by following the same
procedure as provided for recording of Advance Directive. Withdrawal or
revocation of an Advance Directive must be in writing.
(ii) An Advance Directive shall not be applicable to the treatment
in question if there are reasonable grounds for believing that circumstances
exist which the person making the directive did not anticipate at the time of
the Advance Directive and which would have affected his decision had he
anticipated them.
(iii) If the Advance Directive is not clear and ambiguous, the
concerned Medical Boards shall not give effect to the same and, in that event,
the guidelines meant for patients without Advance Directive shall be made
applicable.
(iv) Where the Hospital Medical Board takes a decision not to
follow an Advance Directive while treating a person, then it shall make an
application to the Medical Board constituted by the Collector for consideration
and appropriate direction on the Advance Directive.
192. It is necessary to make it clear that there will be cases
where there is no Advance Directive. The said class of persons cannot be
alienated. In cases where there is no Advance Directive, the procedure and
safeguards are to be same as applied to cases where Advance Directives are in
existence and in addition there to, the following procedure shall be followed:-
(i) In cases where the patient is terminally ill and
undergoing prolonged treatment in respect of ailment which is incurable or
where there is no hope of being cured, the physician may inform the hospital
which, in turn, shall constitute a Hospital Medical Board in the manner
indicated earlier. The Hospital Medical Board shall discuss with the
family physician and the family members and record the minutes of the
discussion in writing. During the discussion, the family members shall be
apprised of the pros and cons of withdrawal or refusal of further medical
treatment to the patient and if they give consent in writing, then the Hospital
Medical Board may certify the course of action to be taken. Their decision will
be regarded as a preliminary opinion.
(ii) In the event the Hospital Medical Board certifies the option
of withdrawal or refusal of further medical treatment, the hospital shall
immediately inform the jurisdictional Collector. The jurisdictional Collector
shall then constitute a Medical Board comprising the Chief District Medical
Officer as the Chairman and three experts from the fields of general medicine,
cardiology, neurology, nephrology, psychiatry or oncology with experience in
critical care and with overall standing in the medical profession of at
least twenty years. The Medical Board constituted by the Collector shall visit
the hospital for physical examination of the patient and, after studying the
medical papers, may concur with the opinion of the Hospital Medical Board. In
that event, intimation shall be given by the Chairman of the Collector
nominated Medical Board to the JMFC and the family members of the patient.
(iii) The JMFC shall visit the patient at the earliest and verify
the medical reports, examine the condition of the patient, discuss with the
family members of the patient and, if satisfied in all respects, may endorse
the decision of the Collector nominated Medical Board to withdraw or refuse
further medical treatment to the terminally ill patient.
(iv) There may be cases where the Board may not take a decision to
the effect of withdrawing medical treatment of the patient on the Collector
nominated Medical Board may not concur with the opinion of the hospital
Medical Board. In such a situation, the nominee of the patient or the family
member or the treating doctor or the hospital staff can seek permission from
the High Court to withdraw life support by way of writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution in which case the Chief Justice of the said High Court shall
constitute a Division Bench which shall decide to grant approval or not. The
High Court may constitute an independent Committee to depute three doctors from
the fields of general medicine, cardiology, neurology, nephrology, psychiatry
or oncology with experience in critical care and with overall standing in the
medical profession of at least twenty years after consulting the competent
medical practitioners. It shall also afford an opportunity to the State
counsel. The High Court in such cases shall render its decision at the earliest
since such matters cannot brook any delay. Needless to say, the High Court
shall ascribe reasons specifically keeping in mind the principle of "best
interests of the patient"..
193. Having said this, we think it appropriate to cover a vital
aspect to the effect the life support is withdrawn, the same shall also be
intimated by the Magistrate to the High Court. It shall be kept in a digital
format by the Registry of the High Court apart from keeping the hard copy which
shall be destroyed after the expiry of three years from the death of the
patient.
195. In view of the aforesaid analysis,
we record our conclusions in seriatim:-
(i) A careful and precise perusal of the
judgment in Gian Kaur (supra) case reflects the right of a dying man to die
with dignity when life is ebbing out, and in the case of a terminally ill
patient or a person in PVS, where there is no hope of recovery, accelerating
the process of death for reducing the period of suffering constitutes a
right to live with dignity.
(ii) The Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur
(supra) has not approved the decision in Airedale (supra) inasmuch as the Court
has only made a brief reference to the Airedale case.
(iii) It is not the ratio of Gian Kaur
(supra) that passive euthanasia can be introduced only by legislation.
(iv) The two-Judge bench in Aruna Shanbaug
(supra) has erred in holding that this Court in Gian Kaur (supra) has approved
the decision in Airedale case and that euthanasia could be made lawful only by
legislation.
(v) There is an inherent difference between active euthanasia
and passive euthanasia as the former entails a positive affirmative act, while
the latter relates to withdrawal of life support measures or withholding
of medical treatment meant for artificially prolonging life.
(vi) In active euthanasia, a specific
overt act is done to end the patient‘s life whereas in passive euthanasia,
something is not done which is necessary for preserving a patient's life. It is
due to this difference that most of the countries across the world have
legalised passive euthanasia either by legislation or by judicial
interpretation with certain conditions and safeguards.
(vii) Post Aruna Shanbaug (supra), the 241st report of the Law
Commission of India on Passive Euthanasia has also recognized passive
euthanasia, but no law has been enacted.
(viii) An inquiry into common law
jurisdictions reveals that all adults with capacity to consent have the right
of self- determination and autonomy. The said rights pave the way for the right
to refuse medical treatment which has acclaimed universal recognition. A competent
person who has come of age has the right to refuse specific treatment or all
treatment or opt for an alternative treatment, even if such decision entails a
risk of death. The 'Emergency Principle' or the 'Principle of Necessity' has to
be given effect to only when it is not practicable to obtain the patient's
consent for treatment and his/her life is in danger. But where a patient has already made
a valid Advance Directive which is free from reasonable doubt and specifying
that he/she does not wish to be treated, then such directive has to be given
effect to.
(ix) Right to life and liberty as
envisaged under Article 21 of
the Constitution is meaningless unless it encompasses within its sphere individual
dignity. With the passage of time, this Court has expanded the spectrum
of Article 21 to
include within it the right to live with dignity as component of right to
life and liberty.
(x) It has to be stated without any
trace of doubt that the right to live with dignity also includes the smoothening of the process of
dying in case of a terminally ill patient or a person in PVS with no hope of
recovery.
(xi) A failure to legally recognize
advance medical directives may amount to non-facilitation of the right to
smoothen the dying process and the right to live with dignity. Further, a study
of the position in other jurisdictions shows that Advance Directives have
gained lawful recognition in several jurisdictions by way of legislation and in
certain countries through judicial pronouncements.
(xii) Though the sanctity of life has to
be kept on the high pedestal yet in cases of terminally ill persons or PVS
patients where there is no hope for revival, priority shall be given to
the Advance Directive and the right of self-determination.
(xiii) In the absence of Advance
Directive, the procedure provided for the said category hereinbefore shall be
applicable.
(xiv) When passive euthanasia as a situational palliative
measure becomes applicable, the best interest of the patient shall override the
State interest.
196. We have laid down the principles
relating to the procedure for execution of Advance Directive and provided the
guidelines to give effect to passive euthanasia in both circumstances, namely,
where there are advance directives and where there are none, in exercise of the
power under Article 142 of
the Constitution and the law stated in Vishaka and Others v. State of
Rajasthan and Others 65 . The directive and guidelines shall remain
in force till the Parliament brings a legislation in the field.
197. The Writ Petition is, accordingly,
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
………………………….CJI (Dipak Misra) ..…………….…………….J.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) New Delhi
DISSENTING
VIEW
March 09, 2018 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 215 OF 2005 COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER .....RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.
In our
country, there is yet no legislation Pertaining to advance medical directive. It is, however,
relevant to note that Ministry of
Health and Family
Welfare vide its order dated 06.05.2016 uploaded the Law
Commission's 241st report and solicited
opinions, comments on the same. An explanatory note has also been
uploaded by the Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare
where in paragraph 6 following was stated:
“ Living Will has
been defined as “A document in which
person states his/her desire to have or
not to have extraordinary life prolonging
measures used when recovery is not
possible from his/her terminal condition”.
However, as per para 11 of the said Bill
the advance medical directive (living will)
or medical power of attorney executed by the
person shall be void and of no
effect and shall not be binding on
any medical practitioner.” Although in Clause 11
of the draft bill, it was
contemplated that advance medical directives
are not binding on medical practitioner but
the process of legislation had not
reached at any final stage. The
directions and safeguards which have been enumerated by
Hon'ble Chief Justice in his judgment
shall be sufficient to safeguard the interests
of patients,
doctors and society till the appropriate legislation is
framed and enforced.
We thus conclude
that a person with competent medical
facility is entitled to execute an
advance medical directive subject to various safeguards as noted
above.
M. CONCLUSIONS:
From the above discussions, we arrive on following
conclusions:
(i) The
Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur's case
held that the “right to life: including
right to live with human dignity” would mean the existence of such right up
to the end of natural life, which
also includes the right to a dignified
life upto the point of death
including a dignified procedure of death.
The above right was held to be part of
fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution which we also reiterate.
(ii) We agree
with the observation made in the reference
order of the three Judge Bench to
the effect that the Constitution Bench in
Gian Kaur's case did not express any
binding view on the subject of
euthanasia. We hold that no binding view
was expressed by the
Constitution Bench on the subject of Euthanasia.
(iii) The Constitution
Bench, however, noted a
distinction between cases in which physician decides not
to provide or continue to provide for
treatment and care, which could or might prolong his life and those in
which he decides to administer a lethal drug even though
with object of relieving the patient
from pain and suffering. The later was
held not to be covered under
any right flowing from Article 21.
(iv)
Thus, the law of the land as existing today is
that no one
is permitted to cause death of
another
person including a physician by administering any lethal drug
even if the objective is to
relieve the patient from pain and suffering.
(v)
An adult human being of conscious mind is fully
entitled to refuse medical treatment or to decide not to
take medical treatment and may decide
to embrace
the death in natural way.
(vi)
Euthanasia as the meaning of words suggest is an
act which leads to a good death.
Some
positive act is necessary to characterise
the action as Euthanasia.
Euthanasia is also commonly called “assisted suicide” due
to the above reasons.
(vii)
We are thus of the opinion that the right not
to take a life saving treatment by
a person, who is
competent to take an informed decision is not covered by
the concept of euthanasia as it is
commonly understood but a decision to withdraw life
saving treatment by a patient who is
competent to take decision as well
as with regard to a patient who
is not competent to take decision can
be termed as passive euthanasia, which
is
lawful and legally permissible in this country.
(viii) The right of
patient who is
incompetent to
express his view cannot be outside of fold of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(ix) We also are
of the opinion that in cases
of
incompetent patients who are unable to take an informed
decision, “the best interests principle” be applied and
such decision be taken by specified
competent medical experts and be implemented
after providing a cooling
period to enable aggrieved person to approach the court
of law.
(x)
An advance medical directive is an individual’s
advance exercise of his autonomy on
the subject of extent of medical intervention
that he wishes to allow
upon his own body at a future date, when he may not be
in a position to specify his wishes.
The purpose and object of advance
medical directive is to express the
choice of a person regarding medical
treatment in an event when he looses
capacity to take a decision. The
right to execute an advance medical directive is nothing but a step towards protection of aforesaid right by an
individual.
(xi)
Right of execution of an advance medical directive
by an individual does not depend on any recognition or
legislation by a State and we are
of the considered opinion that such
rights can be exercised by an individual
in recognition and in affirmation of
his right of bodily integrity and self determination.
In view of our conclusions as noted above the writ
petition is allowed in the following manner:
(a)
The right to die with dignity as fundamental right
has already been declared by the
Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Gian Kaur case (supra)
which we reiterate.
(b)
We declare that an adult human being having mental
capacity to take an informed decision
has right to
refuse medical treatment including withdrawal from life
saving devices.
(c)
A person of competent mental faculty is entitled to
execute an advance medical directive in accordance with
safeguards as referred to above.
96.
Before we conclude, we acknowledge our indebtness
to all the learned Advocates who have rendered valuable
assistance with great industry and ability which made it
possible for us to resolve issues of
seminal public importance. We record our
fullest appreciation for the assistance
rendered by each and every counsel in
this case.
...............................J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN ) NEW DELHI, MARCH 09, 2018.
REFUSAL TO END LIFE ( by active EUTHANASIA )
Recent BOMBAY High Court
Judgment refused to end the natural life span of the Petitioner who was other
wise not on ventilator or life support.
Patient medical history :
81 years old,
The wife of the petitioner left for heavenly abode on 07.09.2019.
According to the petitioner, he has decided to donate his body to
respondent No. 2/Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad for the
purpose of research.
2(iii) According to the petitioner, he is suffering from - (1) E/O
sacralisation of the L5 vertebra, (2) E/O Dessication with posterocentrolateral
protrusions of the L4- L5, L3-L4, L2-L3, L1-L2 Discs causing thecal sac
compression and bilateral neural foramina stenosis with compression of the
bilateral exiting nerve roots at that levels and, (3) Spinal cord shows normal
signal intensities.
He was admitted in Kamalnayan Bajaj Hospital, Aurangabad for the
treatment due to enormous pain. He is not in a position to bear with severe
pains. The MRI Lumber Spine of the petitioner was conducted on 14.06.2018 and
doctor opined that operation is necessary. However, it was also opined by the
doctor that 3 WP-5613-2020 considering the age of the petitioner, there
are remote chances of successful surgery.
2(iv) The petitioner is suffering from enormous pain since June,
2018 and it is neither operational nor curable. Due to said back disc problem,
he is bed-ridden and requires assistance for moving from one place to another
place. After the sad demise of spouse, there is no one to assist the
petitioner. The sons, daughter in laws are not looking after the petitioner.
Even the petitioner is not in a position to go for natural call and he needs
assistance every time. For second time, he was admitted in a private hospital
on 03.02.2020 due to severe pain, but doctor again opined that pain and back
disc problems of the petitioner are not curable in view of the age of the
petitioner. There is no hope to come out of severe pains.
2(v) The petitioner is not mentally and physically able to face
severe pain. In the above premise, the petitioner is seeking permission from
this Court to allow him to have active euthanasia in view of the Judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Common Cause(A Regd. Society)
Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2018) 5 SCC 1.reducing his pain nor
recovering from back disc problem. It is the stand of the petitioner that every
human being who is an adult and sound mind has a right to determine about his
further journey of life. An adult person is entitled to refuse medical treatment.
It is the final word of the patient whether to continue with medical treatment
or to refuse it. It is contended by the petitioner that though Article 21 of the
Constitution of India gives guarantee of protection of life and personal
liberty and provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to procedure established by law. According to the
petitioner, the word liberty is the sense and realization of choice of the
attributes associated with the said choice and the term life is the aspiration
to possess the same in a dignified manner. Life does not intend to live sans
liberty as it would be, in all possibility, a meaningless survival. It is
further stand of the petitioner that the right to life includes the right to
live with human dignity and all that goes along with bear necessaries of life
such as nutrition, clothing, shelter, right of expression, freely moving etc.
2(vii) According to the petitioner, he is not in a position to survive with
enormous pain. As such, he is seeking permission/direction to have with the
active euthanasia at the behest of respondent No. 2/registered medical
practitioner in the light of 5 WP-5613-2020 law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Aruna Shanbaugh and Common Cause (Supra).
2(viii) The State/Respondent has strongly opposed to allow such
prayer by filing reply-affidavit. It is the stand of the State that active
euthanasia is not permissible in law and if such exercise is made, it would
amount to an offence. …………”
Decision of Bombay High
Court and reasons for refusal of same
“25. The
case of the petitioner is not governed by passive euthanasia. The petitioner is
not restricted to bed, he is discharging his daily pursuits though taking
assistance of family members. We can understand pains of the petitioner which
he is facing and lonely life when his better half has left him alone in the
mid-way. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking intervention to curtail
his natural span of life through registered medical practitioner. Certainly, it
is not lawful for the doctor to administer any drug to his patient to bring
about his death. Active euthanasia falls in the definition of crime. The
difference between "active" and "passive" euthanasia is
that in 24 WP-5613-2020 active euthanasia, something is done to end
the patient's life while in passive euthanasia, something is not done that
would have preserved the patient's life. We have all the sympathy with the
petitioner, but we are unable to accede to the request made by the petitioner
for termination of life by way of active euthanasia.”
Conclusion :
In my humble opinion : I respectfully disagree. Active and Passive
Euthanasia should be allowed in Law to end suffering or alleviate pain. Especially, in senior citizens or patients who are aware
that medical science cannot cure the suffering and there wont be recovery and
normal life. (Only in rare / rarest of rare cases – bed ridden cases, acute rheumatic
pains, cancer, etc. )
Especially, when the medical infrastructure has collapsed due to unavailability of critical care beds, life saving drugs, oxygen at home or in the hospital, so on and so forth. Additionally when immunocompromised patients are contracting hospital related secondary infections.
We have to think beyond
morality, religion and pass laws to end suffering of humanity or animal kingdom
( Active Euthanasia is allowed in animals ).
Comments
Post a Comment