In A Historic Verdict SC Allows Passive Euthanasia For Terminally Ill, Recognises Right To Die With Dignity
The Supreme Court has ruled that human beings have the right to die with dignity and allowed passive euthanasia for terminally ill people under strict guidelines. The court has also set strict guidelines for carrying out the mandate of a living will by specifying who is authorised to give effect to it.
In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court has ruled that human beings have the right to die with dignity and allowed passive euthanasia for terminally ill people, under strict guidelines.
Passive euthanasia is a condition where there is withdrawal of medical treatment with the deliberate intention to hasten the death of a terminally-ill patient.
PTI/File
The five-member bench of the SC recognising ¡°living will¡± made by terminally-ill patients who are likely to go into a permanent vegetative state, laid down guidelines for the same, including who would execute the will and how nod for passive euthanasia would be granted by the medical board.
The apex court's order came on a plea by the NGO 'Common Cause'.
The court noted that a 'living will' should be allowed, because an individual should not be allowed to continue suffering in a vegetative state when they don't wish to continue living.
Representational Image
The court has also set strict guidelines for carrying out the mandate of a 'living will by specifying who is authorised to give effect to it. The court also talked of involving a medical board to determine whether the patient in a vegetative state could be revived or not.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner argued that safeguards were needed while taking a decision by medical boards to withdraw life support of a patient.
BCCL/File
The top court had in 2011 recognised passive euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaug's case by which it had permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position to make an informed decision.
The Centre had opposed recognition of 'living will' and said the consent for removal of artificial support system given by a patient may not be an informed one and without being aware of medical advancements.