Skip to main content

SUPREME COURT ALLOWS PASSIVE EUTHANASIA, SETS GUIDELINES


In a noteworthy choice, the Supreme Court on 09th March 2018 proclaimed passive euthanasia and the right of people, including the terminally ill, to give mandates to reject therapeutic treatment as permissible.

A Constitution Bench, driven by the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, in three concurring assessments, maintained that the basic right to life and nobility incorporates the right to decline treatment and die with pride.

The basic appropriate to a "significant presence" includes a man's decision to pass on without anguish, it held. Chief Justice Misra discussed the societal weight and dread of criminal risk by relatives and medical specialists which often furthered the undignified passing of the patient.
The court said the time had come to get rid of such collective enduring and feeling of blame and to face the truth. Medical professional attending to the critically ill were feeling the pressure of releasing the patient, securing criminal obligation and dread of being drawn into a "vortex" of a conceivable family battle for legacy.

Chief Justice Misra, in a combined judgment along with Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, declared that the time had come to "alleviate the agony of an individual" and stand by their right to pass with dignity. A meaningful existence should be followed by dignified death, the five-judge Bench agreed unanimously.

Justice A.K. Sikri, in his separate opinion, said though religion, morality, philosophy, law and society shared equally strong and conflicting opinions about whether right to life included right to death, they all agreed that a person should die with dignity. Hence, the court, Justice Sikri said, was in favour of a person’s right to die with dignity.

Justice Sikri said a living will or an advance directive from a patient to stop medical treatment at a time, "particularly when he is brain dead or clinically dead or not revivable", supressed the possibility of future regret for relatives and any criminal action against medical practitioners.

The Chief Justice's judgment has set for guidelines which are specific for testing the validity of a particular living will, who must certify it, when and how it would come into effect, etc. The guidelines also provide for a situation where a living will may not exist and how one may plea passive euthanasia under such circumastances.

Separately, Justice Chandrachud also observed that medical science in its modern form should be aimed at balancing the quest for prolong life with and the need for patients to lead a quality life. He said, that the two had to coexist, it was meaningless to have one without the other. Matters related to death and when a person may die are perhaps beyond the boundaries of law, however, the court believed that it was possible for it to intervene since these matters are also concerned with a person’s autonomy and liberty

"Free will includes the right of a person to refuse medical treatment," said Justice Chandrachud.

But, at the same time, the judge held that what is unlawful, is active euthanasia.

"To deprive a person dignity at the end of life is to deprive him of a meaningful existence," Justice Chandrachud read from his opinion which he shared with Justice Ashok Bhushan.



Picture Credits: Tribune India.

--

Written By: 
Harshita Chaarag
IV Year
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Blog.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

INTRA INSTITUTE MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018

For students of law, mooting is perhaps the most important skill one must hone. To facilitate the students in getting optimum mooting experience, the Army Institute of Law holds the Intra-Institute Moot Court Competition annually.  The final round of the Intra-Institute Moot Court Competition 2018 was held on the 12th of April 2018. The competition was conducted over 2 preliminary rounds held on 10th and 11th of April 2018 and semi-final and final round held on the 12th. The competition saw 16 teams fighting out the Proposition prepared by Mr. Anil Malhotra, senior advocate. The preliminary and semi-final rounds were presided by faculty members of the institute. Gracing the bench for the final round were Justice Dipak Sibal, Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Prof. Dr. Rattan Singh, Director Panjab University and Mr. Anil Malhotra, Senior Advocate, Punjab & Haryana High Court. Reaching the finals were Team 1 comprising Shweta Nair and Akanksha ...

ON REVAMPING THE INDIAN POLICE

It is the inbred duty of the state to provide for a non-partisan and efficient police authority that will facilitate in shielding the interests of the people. ‘Police’ being a state subject under the Constitution of India, the onus falls upon the state government to provide for a streamlined police force. Quite a few years have passed since the prominent judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India [1] on police reforms exhorting the central and the state government to modify the police system making it more people centric than ruler centric but the ground reality seems to be unvaried. During our colonial time people had a fear of Police owing to the fact that the very fabrication of colonial police is based on wariness, and the image associated with it was robust but now that fabrication needs to be reviewed. Prime Minister Narendra Modi while addressing the 49th Annual Conference of Director General of Police and heads of all Central police o...

Thursday Activity: Law as a career

On 5th September, 2019 the multi purpose hall at Army Institute of Law was graced with the presence of Dr. Mandeep Mittal, Additional Member Secretary, Punjab State Legal Services Authority. He delivered a lecture on the functioning of Legal Services Authority and encouraged the students to take part in it as a paralegal volunteers.