.jpg)
The Supreme Court on Wednesday delivered a historic verdict in a euthanasia case. The court granted passive euthanasia to 31-year-old Harish Rana, who has been in a coma for 13 years. Harish, a resident of Ghaziabad, is on life support.
This is the first such case in the country. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Vishwanathan directed AIIMS to phase out Harish's life support system. This process should be carried out in a manner that maintains the patient's dignity.
Passive euthanasia means stopping or withdrawing external life support or treatment to keep a critically ill patient alive, allowing the patient to die naturally.
The Supreme Court delivered this verdict on an appeal for euthanasia from Harish's mother, Nirmala Rana, and father, Ashok Rana.
Father Ashok said on the verdict:
QuoteImage
We have been fighting for this for a long time. Which parent would want this for their son? We've been fighting this case for the past three years. Now he'll be taken to AIIMS. He used to be a topper at Punjab University.
QuoteImage
Harish fell from the fourth floor of his hostel, bedridden ever since
Born in Delhi, Harish Rana was pursuing a B.Tech degree at Punjab University in Chandigarh. In 2013, he fell from the fourth floor of his hostel. This left him completely paralyzed and in a coma. He can neither speak nor feel.
Doctors diagnosed Harish with quadriplegia, a condition where patients are completely dependent on feeding tubes and ventilator support. There's no chance of recovery. Being bedridden for 13 years has left Harish with bedsores, deep wounds, all over his body. His condition is steadily deteriorating.
This condition is extremely painful for Harish. It has been extremely difficult for the family to see him like this. So much has been spent on ventilators, medications, nursing, and care over the years that the family has been financially devastated.
The Supreme Court cited Shakespeare in its decision.
While delivering the verdict, Justice Pardiwala cited the words of American cleric Henry Ward Beecher, saying, "God does not ask a man whether he accepts life; he must take life."
He also cited the line "To be or not to be" from William Shakespeare's famous play, "The Lord of the Rings," noting that courts often have to consider the "right to die" in the context of similar questions.
The decision to remove life support should be based on two criteria:
The intervention must fall within the scope of medical treatment.
It must be in the patient's best interest.
The court also stated that a doctor's duty is to treat a patient, but this duty ceases to exist when there is no prospect of recovery.
The Supreme Court asked the Central Government to enact a law.
The Supreme Court also asked the Central Government to consider enacting a law on passive euthanasia. Currently, in India, this is only possible based on Supreme Court guidelines, which require the opinion of two medical boards on the patient's condition.
There are two methods of euthanasia...
Passive euthanasia: In this, the patient's treatment or life support, such as a ventilator, feeding tube, or medication, is stopped so that the patient dies naturally. Doctors do not perform any new procedures; they simply stop treatment. The cause of death remains the disease.
Active euthanasia: In this, doctors use medication or injections to kill the patient. This is illegal in India. If someone intentionally kills a patient by administering medication, it is considered murder under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code (BNS) or assisted suicide under the Criminal Procedure Code.
.jpg)
What is the law on euthanasia in the Indian Constitution?
In 2005, an NGO called Common Cause filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking the right to passive euthanasia. On March 9, 2018, a five-judge bench led by CJI Deepak Mishra granted legal recognition to euthanasia.
The Supreme Court then stated,
QuoteImage
If a patient has a terminal illness or is in a vegetative state, i.e., alive only on life support systems, their treatment can be discontinued to allow them to die naturally. This would not be considered euthanasia, but rather the right to die with dignity.
QuoteImage
This right is part of Article 21 of the Constitution, which includes the right to live with dignity and die with dignity.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
