SC Questions utility of living will – Passive euthanasia

Subject : Polity

Section: Constitutional framework

Concept :

More than four years after its landmark order on passive euthanasia, the Supreme Court said that it is for the legislature to enact a law for terminally ill patients choosing to stop treatment but agreed to modify its 2018 guidelines on “Living Will”, an advance medical directive on end of life treatment.
The apex court’s order notwithstanding, people wanting to get a “living will” registered have been facing problems due to cumbersome guidelines.
It said the advance medical directive can be applied only in the narrow area where patients become so terminally ill that they are not in a position to say that the treatment must stop.
The apex court indicated it might set a time limit on the procedure involved as protracted delay will defeat the whole purpose of writing a Living Will.

Euthanasia

Euthanasia is a practice under which a person intentionally ends their life with active assistance from others.
Several European nations, some states in Australia and Colombia in South America allow assisted suicide and euthanasia under certain circumstances.
Active:
- Active euthanasia, which is legal in only a few countries, entails the use of substances to end the life of the patient.
Passive:
- It involves simply stopping lifesaving treatment or medical intervention with the consent of the patient or a family member or a close friend representing the patient.

SC judgement on Passive Euthanasia

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia in 2018, stating that it was a matter of ‘living will’.
According to the judgment, an adult in his conscious mind is permitted to refuse medical treatment or voluntarily decide not to take medical treatment to embrace death in a natural way, under certain conditions.
The court laid down a set of guidelines for ‘living will’ and defined passive euthanasia and euthanasia as well.
It also laid down guidelines for ‘living will’ made by terminally ill patients who beforehand know about their chances of slipping into a permanent vegetative state.
The court specifically stated that the rights of a patient, in such cases, would not fall out of the purview of Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
The SC’s judgment was in accordance with its verdict in March 2011 on a separate plea.
- While ruling on a petition on behalf of Aruna Shanbaug, the court had allowed passive euthanasia for the nurse who had spent decades in a vegetative state. Shanbaug had become central to debates on the legality of right to die and euthanasia in India.
- A vegetative state is when a person is awake but is showing no signs of awareness.
However, another bench of the Supreme Court, in 2014, cited inconsistencies in earlier verdicts on passive euthanasia, including the one given in the Shanbaug case, and referred the matter to a Constitution bench.