In a path-breaking Judgment, the Supreme Court of India on Monday (07-03-2011) ruled in favour of “PASSIVE EUTHANASIA” in case of patients in permanent vegetative state (PVS) and stated that such a decision arrived at by close relatives and doctors can be undertaken only after the approval of the high court.
In the landmark verdict, a Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra laid down strict guidelines to process “passive euthanasia” till Parliament passes a law, while making a clear distinction between “active euthanasia”, which means ending the life of a patient by injecting medication and “passive euthanasia”, permitting doctors to withdraw life support to a terminally ill patient. The apex court said there was no ambiguity in the law on “active euthanasia”, a crime under IPC sections 302 (murder), 304. The court however rejected a plea to end the life of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug, a Mumbai nurse who has been in a vegetative state for 37 years.
The court said, “a decision has to be taken to discontinue life support either by the parents or the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attending the patient.” The court observed that there was always a risk in our country that it could be misused by some unscrupulous persons who wished to inherit or otherwise grabbed the property of the patient.
“In the case of an incompetent person who is unable to take a decision whether to withdraw life support or not, it is the court alone, as parens patriae, (father of the country) which ultimately must take this decision, though, no doubt, the views of the near relatives, next friend and doctors must be given due weight,” the court said.
The Bench held that the high court has immense power under the Article 226 of the Constitution to decide the plea for mercy killings as it can issue not only writs but directions and orders also under the provision. “The Article 226 gives abundant power to the HC to pass suitable orders on the application filed by the near relatives or next friend or hospital staff seeking permission to withdraw the life support to an incompetent person like Aruna,” it said.
The court also laid down to the procedure for the HC to adjudicate on plea for mercy killing. “There is no statutory provision in our country as to the legal procedure for withdrawing life support to a person in PVS or who is otherwise incompetent to take a decision in this connection,” it said. The SC made it mandatory for the Chief Justice of the HC concerned constitute a Bench of at least two judges in case any plea for mercy killing was made for deciding it. It also directed that the HC should seek opinion a panel of three reputed doctors preferably of neurologist, physician and psychiatrist in this regard.
The ruling is likely to spark a fresh debate on the subject of euthanasia, which is illegal in India. There are some concerns it could be misused if legalized.
 |
| Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug |
Glimpse of Aruna’s Case:
*Nov 27, 1973: Aruna, 24, is assaulted physically and sodomised by a sweeper, Sohanlal Valmiki, at the hospital, who ties a dog’s leash around her neck and yanks her with it.
*Nov 28, 1973: A cleaner finds her lying unconscious on the floor with blood all over. It is learnt that due to strangulation by the dog’s leash, supply of oxygen to the brain stopped and the brain got damaged. Later, nurses at KEM go on a three-day strike demanding additional security and better working conditions.
*1974: Sohanlal is sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for attempt to murder and for robbing Aruna’s earrings.
*1998: Journalist and author Pinki Virani is given permission to shift Aruna for MRI to Jaslok Hospital. However, doctors, fearing it could cause Aruna’s death, retract the permission. The same year, ‘Aruna’s story, the true account of a rape and its aftermath’ authored by Pinki Virani is published.
*Dec 18, 2009: SC admits Pinki Virani’s petition for mercy killing of Aruna.
*Jan 24, 2011: SC appoints a team of three distinguished doctors of Mumbai — J V Divatia, Roop Gurshani and Nilesh Shah — to examine Aruna thoroughly and submit a report about her physical and mental condition.
Dr Sanjay Oak, Dean KEM Hospital, Mumbai issues a statement opposing euthanasia for Aruna.
*Feb 17: The team of doctors submits its report to the court.
*Feb 18: The Supreme Court directs the three doctors to appear before it on March 2, 2011 and explain technical terms used in the report as well as share their views on euthanasia.
*Mar 2, 2011: The SC reserves verdict.
*Mar 7, 2011: The Supreme Court dismisses plea for mercy killing of Aruna. Allows passive euthanasia under exceptional circumstances.
*United States: Nancy Cruzan of Missouri had a major car accident in 1983. She continued to be fed through a surgically-implanted gastrostomy tube. Eight years after the accident, in 1990 a Missouri circuit court allowed the removal of her artificial feeding system. Within two hours after the ruling, Cruzan’s doctor removed the tube and she died.
*Australia: John Whylie - died from an overdose of Nembutal, a powerful sleeping pill, in Sydney. His wife Shirley Justins and friend were accused of assisting his suicide-cum-murder.
(Source: Deccan Herald)