Passive Euthanasia updates: Fundamental Right to 'meaningful existence' includes right to dignified death, says SC

Fundamental right to 'meaningful existence' includes right to die without suffering, says SC

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan lauds Supreme Court's verdict

Chronology of events leading to Supreme Court recognising 'living will' 

Following is the chronology of events related to Friday's landmark verdict by a five-judge Constitution bench, recognising 'living will' to be made by terminally-ill patients for passive euthanasia:

11 May, 2005: Supreme Court takes note of PIL of NGO 'Common Cause' seeking nod to allow terminally-ill persons to execute a living will for passive euthanasia. It seeks the Centre's response on the plea which seeks declaration of 'right to die with dignity' as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

16 January, 2006: Supreme Court allows Delhi Medical Council (DMC) to intervene and asks it to file documents on passive euthanasia.

28 April, 2006: Law Commission suggests a draft bill on passive euthanasia and says such pleas be made to high courts which should decide after taking experts' views.

31 January, 2007: Supreme Court asks parties to file documents.

7 March, 2011: Supreme Court, on a separate plea on behalf of Aruna Shanbaug, allows passive euthanasia for the nurse lying in vegetative state at a hospital in Mumbai.

23 January, 2014: A three-judge bench led by then-CJI P Sathasivam starts final hearing in the case.

11 February: DMC files copy of proceedings of International Workshop for Policy Statement on Euthanasia in India and SC reserves verdict.

25 February: Supreme Court cites inconsistencies in earlier verdicts on passive euthanasia including the one given in the Shanbaug case and refers the PIL to a Constitution bench.

15 July: A five-judge bench commences hearing on the plea, issues notices to all states and UTs, and appoints senior advocate TR Andhyarujina as an amicus curiae. He dies during the pendency of the case.

15 February, 2016: Centre says that it is deliberating the issue.

11 October, 2017: Five-judge Constitution bench led by CJI Dipak Misra hears arguments and reserves the verdict.

9 March, 2018: Supreme Court recognises 'living will' made by terminally-ill patients for passive euthanasia and lays down guidelines on procedures to be adopted for it.

Legalising passive euthanasia is not just about patient's rights, it is an emotional and legal relief to the family

The Supreme Court judgment on passive euthanasia is a big relief to family members of terminally-ill patients, emotionally, financially and legally. To decide to pull the plug on a family member who is on artificial life support system with rising medical costs and very little or no hope of survival is in itself a tortuous decision to make. 

But that is nothing compared to the insensitivity the family goes through with the legal system. Passive euthanasia won't begin from today, now that the Supreme Court has legalised it. It is the worst kept secret of our medicare system. 

This is how passive euthanasia used to work on the ground: The hospital or treating doctors would advise family members about the futility of keeping the patient on life support any longer. They would not take any responsibility beyond that because passive euthanasia was illegal. It would now be up to the family  to decide whether and when to switch off. What should be a joint decision would be pinned solely on the family. 

But it wouldn't stop there because most hospitals don't like to show the death on their statistics, they would then force the family to shift the patient home. Worse, to legally secure the hospital, the release certificate would term it "discharge against medical advise" after actually advising the family, unofficially, to the contrary. Legally, the hospital would want no responsibility. Following the discharge, if the patient died on the way home — a real possibility in the circumstances — then the family would run into problems procuring the death certificate because the hospital would now be out of the picture and there would be nobody to certify the death. The family would then have to run around for a doctor who would be willing to certify the death. That is why the SC judgement is so welcome. 

Now, all this can happen legally and in a hospital. The judgement does not recognise just the right to dignity of death, but it relieves the family of enormous emotional and legal hassles by legalising what was anyway happening in every hospital.

I respect Supreme Court decision, but as a Christian don't advocate killing: Archdiocese of Mumbai 

Speaking to Firstpost, Father Sebastian Michael, secretary, inter-religious commission, Archdiocese of Mumbai said that as a citizen of India he respects the Supreme Court decision. "However, as a Christian, I believe life is precious and cannot be taken away by anyone. Eeven by oneself. We have no right to take anyone's life or even our's. We have to live out life. I understand that sometimes certain circumstances in life may be very difficult. However, these teach lessons for the individuals and  society. No one should take away another's life or his/her own."

Supreme Court lays down guidelines

The court also laid down guidelines governing execution and enforcement of living wills, as well as procedure to be followed for passive Euthanasia in case there is no living will/advance directive.

Full text of the judgment is still awaited.

All judges were unanimous that living will should be permitted: CJI Misra

CJI Dipak Misra, while reading out the judgment, said that though there were four separate opinions of the bench but all the judges were unanimous that the 'living will' should be permitted since a person cannot be allowed to continue suffering in a comatose state when he or she doesn't wish to live.

What did the Supreme Court observe?

- Terminally ill patients can make living will. 

- Close friends and family can go to high court

- High courts should constitute medical board which will decide if passive euthanasia is needed

Why was there a verdict on passive euthanasia after Aruna Shanbaug case?

Friday's Supreme Court verdict is not primarily on passive euthanasia or its legality. Last year, on 11 October, the Centre had categorically informed the Supreme Court that "passive euthanasia" was the law of the land and that the government was in conformity with it.

The top court in its verdict on 7 March, 2014 in Aruna Shanbaug case had permitted passive euthanasia or passive mercy killing under certain circumstances, provided it was backed by the permission of the high court concerned.

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.

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.

What is the difference between active and passive euthanasia

While the Supreme Court has legalised passive euthanasia, it has not passed any judgment on active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia entails a withdrawal of medical treatment to deliberately hasten the death of a terminally-ill patient. While active euthanasia entails the use of lethal substances to end a life.

Passive euthanasia has been made legal as doctors are not condemned for failing to save a life. They are not directly killing someone to save them from a worse death but are just denying saving them.

Rahul Eeswar tweets, says 'sad and pained' by Supreme Court judgment

While majority of the country is hailing the Supreme Court ruling on passive euthanasia as landmark, activist Rahul Eeswar tweeted and said that the judgment was sad and painful. "Sad and pained by Hon'ble Supreme Court Verdict ; The very idea of "living will" can be misused and more importantly not taking into account future growth of Science and medicine."

Living will by terminally-ill individual demanding euthanasia will also be recognised, rules SC

Passive euthanasia is a person's right, Supreme Court has ruled. The top court also held that a living will by an individual demanding euthanasia, if in case the said individual is terminally ill, will also be recognised.

All thanks to Aruna Shanbaug, says Pinki Virani

​

Writer and one of the biggest supporters of passive euthanasia Pinki Virani said that Aruna Shanbaug gave the gift of passive euthanasia to the country and brought patients' rights into focus, even though the system failed her. 

Virani filed a euthanasia petition before the Supreme Court in 2009.

SC lays down guidelines governing execution and enforcement of living wills

The judgment was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan. The apex court also laid down guidelines governing execution and enforcement of living wills, as well as the procedure to be followed for passive Euthanasia in case there is no living will/advance directive.

Passive euthanasia legal, rules Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India has held that right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. The five-judge Bench also held that passive euthanasia and a living will also legally valid.  The Court has issued detailed guidelines in this regard.