New Delhi: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Friday recognised ‘living will’ made by terminally-ill patients for passive euthanasia.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said passive euthanasia and advance living will are “permissible”. The bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan also laid down guidelines as to who would execute the will and how the nod for passive euthanasia would be granted by the medical board.
Pinky Virani, who had filed a petition in the Supreme Court on behalf of Aruna Shanbaug, the King Edward Memorial (KEM) Hospital nurse who was raped and rendered comatose for 40 years, lauded the judgment, and said credit for the court's order goes to Shanbaug.
Who was Arun Shanbaug?
Aruna Shanbaug, the young nurse who was raped and gagged with a dog chain that left her in a coma for 42 years and made her the face of a debate on euthanasia in India, died on Monday May 18, 2015, bringing to an end one of the most tragic journeys of a victim of sexual assault.
Aruna, 66, probably one of the longest living comatose patients, was on ventilator support in the ICU of KEM Hospital after she suffered a serious bout of pneumonia last week.
Aruna, whose dream of nursing the infirm and the ailing back to health had died young on November 27, 1973, when she was sexually assaulted, battered and strangled by ward boy Sohanlal Bhartha Walmiki, could not survive the infection and died early Monday morning.
She had also suffered grave injuries to her spine, while the stifling cut off oxygen supply to her brain, rendering her to a vegetative state for life. Sohanlal was caught and convicted, and served two concurrent seven-year sentences for assault and robbery, but neither for rape nor sexual molestation, nor for the alleged offence of “unnatural sex”. Aruna, who was ever since be confined to a hospital bed, occupied a room attached to ward No.4 on the ground floor of KEM Hospital and the hearts of the staff and nurses there who foiled an attempt by the city’s municipal body to evict her in the 1980s. As the KEM nurses toiled to keep her alive, a journalist Pinki Virani moved the Supreme Court with a euthanasia plea to rid Aruna of unremitting agony. On January 24, 2011, the Supreme Court set up a medical panel to examine her. The committee concluded that Aruna met most of the criteria of being in a permanently vegetative state. While turning down the plea of mercy killing on March 7, 2011, the apex court, however, allowed “passive euthanasia” of withdrawing life support to patients in permanently vegetative state. It rejected outright active euthanasia of ending life through administration of lethal substances. Refusing to grant permission for mercy killing of Aruna, the court had laid down a set of tough guidelines under which passive euthanasia can be legalised through a high court-monitored mechanism. What is passive euthanasia? 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. The top court had, in 2011, recognised passive euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaug’s case by which it had permitted the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position to make an informed decision. What is a living will? Living will is a written document that allows a patient to give explicit instructions in advance about the medical treatment to be administered when he or she is terminally ill or no longer able to express informed consent. It is a concept associated with passive euthanasia. In a living will, you can outline whether or not you want your life to be artificially prolonged in the event of a devastating illness or injury. Is the government opposed to passive euthanasia? Although the government has no problem with practising passive euthanasia as devised under the Aruna Shanbaug verdict, it has opposed living will in principle. The government has argued that consent expressed in the Living Wills could not be considered as “informed”, because the persons who opt for it may not be aware of future medical developments, which can later lead to betterment in the condition of the terminally ill patient today. The government has also expressed reservations, stating what if the person who has made a living will decides to withdraw such a will when he is no more in a condition to give consent.
