The Constitution of India guarantees ‘Right to Life‘ to all its citizens. The ongoing, incessant debate about whether ‘Right To die’ could also be taken as a reference to this provision is around the world. However there is a growing attention being paid to an informed and consenting process for people who are patients within the medical sector, the notion regarding Euthanasia for India has been met with an unsatisfactory response.
The Honourable Supreme Court of India, in the case at hand was contacted under Article 32 under the Indian Constitution to allow for the end to the existence of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug. He was in a vegetative condition. The petition was submitted through Mrs. Pinki Virani, claiming to be the next person to be a friend to the petitioner.
The Court in previous cases explicitly rejected the rights of dying, and consequently legally there was no fundamental violation of rights that could permit the petitioner to apply to the court pursuant to Article 32. However, it is the Supreme Court taking cognizance of the seriousness of the issue concerned. And also the public interest in deciding on whether euthanasia is legal, accepted the petition.
Facts
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug was employed as a staff nurse at Mumbai’s King Edward Memorial Hospital. On November 27, 1973, she was attacked by one of the hospital’s sweeping employees. Using a dog chain to prevent her from moving, he choked and strangled her in order to rape her.
The next day, on November 28, 1973, a cleaning staff discovered her body on the floor, unconscious, with blood everywhere. There was a belief that flow for oxygen in the brain was cut off due to strangulation of the chain, and the brain suffered. This event resulted in permanent brain damage and triggered the state of permanent vegetative state (PVS).
Later, an activist and journalist Pinki Virani filed a petition before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming that there was no chance for her to resurrect and she is entitled to die to a passive euthanasia, and be freed of the pain and suffering she endured.
Issues in the Case
- Would person in a permanent vegetative state (PVS) be permitted to have their life-sustaining devices and procedures removed?
- Can a patient’ wishes be respected if they have previously expressed a desire to not receive life-sustaining measures in the event of a PVS or futile treatment?
- Do the person’s family members request that life-sustaining systems be stopped or withheld if they haven’t already?
Petitioner’s Arguments
A petition was submitted through Ms. Shanbaug’s best friend under section 32 under the Indian Constitution. The lawyer for the petitioner asserted that the right of life under article 21 also includes the right to live life with absolute dignity.
This means that it must also encompass rights to death in dignity. Anyone who is suffering from a terminal illness or who is permanently vegetative is subject to the scope of “right to die” in order to relieve the suffering and pain.
She has no awareness of her surroundings, is incapable of being able to chew food. She is unable to express anything by herself and has been in bed for the last 36 years without any hope for improvement. The patient is dead, and those who responded by not feeding her. Shanbaug’s food won’t kill her.
The Arguments of the Respondent
The Dean of the hospital stated the fact that Mrs. Shanbaug was fed and cared for by the nurses and the hospital personnel for long at 36-years. Staff members were the most extraordinary and utmost respect and a willingness to take charge of her. So, they are opposed and are adamant about Ms. Shanbaug’s death. Since the patient is the age of 60, they fear that old, she could eventually die.
They pleaded with the court not to permit the killing of a person. Staff members have been meticulously and respectfully caring for the basic needs and requirements. If it is legal the act of euthanasia could be terribly predisposed to abuse. A medical staff is even willing to provide care for the patient without remuneration. The patient, unlike the staff of the clinic does not maintain a close relationship with patients, and does not have the emotional connection that is required.
Since the staff was diligent and with the utmost respect looked after Mrs. Shanbaug over a long period of time. They took care of her most basic needs and wants. The legalization of passive euthanasia could be susceptible to abuse by relatives, family members and others. They appealed to the court to deny the practice of suicide. The hospital staff have an emotional bond with her to the point that one nurse is willing to care for the Mrs. Shanbaug throughout the remainder of her life without having to be compensated.
The decision to end Shanbaug’s life. Shanbaug’s existence would be unjust and cruel because she is entitled to live. Additionally, the hospital’s personnel’s extraordinary and selfless work must be considered. In addition, because the patient herself isn’t physically able to sign a consent form for the removal from the life support system, the next question that needs to consider is who will consent to Mrs. Shanbaug.
Judgment
The court made a distinction between passive and active Euthanasia:
The term “active euthanasia” can be interpreted as the deliberate and positive end of a person’s life through injecting and administering lethal drugs. It is regarded as an offense in all countries, unless it is permitted by law.
In India the act of euthanasia in active mode is a clear violation of section 302(2) as well as section 304(3) under the IPC. Furthermore, suicide by physician assisted is a crime under section 309(4) IPC.
Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, is the abolition of life-supporting equipment or medical treatments. The major difference between passive and active euthanasia lies in the fact that in “active” something is done in a deliberate manner to end the life of a person, while when it is “passive” something is not executed.
An appropriate process and procedure were set by the apex court to consider accepting euthanasia for passive patients under the “rarest of rare circumstances” and rejecting the request of the petitioner.
It is the High Court under article 226 is able to take decisions concerning the withdrawal or deactivation of life support. A bench is to be established through the Chief Justice of High Court when an application is received. In this case, the three respected doctors must be considered. The patient must undergo an exhaustive exam of the patient. family members as well as the state. served with a notification issued to the court. The High Court should issue the decision within a short time.
Critical Analysis
In the case before it, Gian Kaur’s appeal the honorable Supreme Court rejected the recognition of the “right to die” as part of the right to live as defined in Article 21 in the Indian Constitution. This case is the historic decision of the legalization of euthanasia for passive patients in India that would reduce suffering and suffering of patients from unexplainably long suffering. Every citizens is entitled to live and has the right to live a dignified life.
What is Euthanasia?
Euthanasia and the procedure it is based on have a an extensive history of locking the horns to avoid conflict in the laws of different countries around the globe. Anyone who is of the age in their adult years and with a well-informed has the right to decide what should be done to their body. It is not legal to provide treatments for an adult that is aware and has a sound mind without the consent of the person.
Passive Euthanasia
For patients suffering from Permanently Vegetative State (PVS) and no chance of recovery, the difference between refusing to receive lifesaving medical treatment (passive suicide) as opposed to giving lethal drugs is rational, logical and well. It is ultimately the Court to make a decision, in parens patria, on what is best in the interest of the patient.
A mistaken decision to stop the treatment results in the maintenance of the status quo, and the possibility of future changes, like advancements in medical research and the discovery of fresh evidence of the patient’s intentions or the changes in law, or even the unexpected death of a patient despite life-sustaining treatments, at the very least, create the possibility that an incorrect decision could eventually be rectified or have an effect will be felt. Passive euthanasia can be described as the withdrawal of medical treatment with the intent to cause the death of the patient.
For instance when a patient needs dialysis for kidneys to live but does not give dialysis despite the machine is readily available is passive euthanasia.
Similar to that, if a person is in coma, or on an oxygen machine for the heart the removal of the machine is usually a cause of an involuntary death. In the same way, refusing to give vital medicines such as antibiotics in certain circumstances could lead to the death of a patient through passive death. Depriving a patient of food who is in coma or suffering from PVS could result in passive Euthanasia.
Active Euthanasia
Euthanasia is the deliberate premature ending of another’s life by direct intervention (active Euthanasia) or delaying life-extending methods and assets (passive Euthanasia) or at the request of a person (whether implied or explicit) of the person (voluntary Euthanasia) or without such consent (non-voluntary Euthanasia).
Euthanasia and Physician assisted Dying: In euthanasia an individual or a an unidentified third party performs the procedure in a physician assisted suicide, it’s the patient who is doing it, albeit according to the advice of the physician. In many states, the latter is a legal option, whereas the former isn’t.
Right to Die
The case was State of Maharashtra v. Maruty Shripati Dubal the argument of the court was Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code was in violation of the Constitution as it was in violation of Article 19. Under this it was ruled by the Bombay High Court that the ‘right to live‘ also encompasses “right to die” and the section 309 was dismissed. The court made clear during the trial that the right to die is not a crime but it is merely rare and unusual.
Likewise, in the matter of Rathinam V. Union of India, it was decided that the meaning that is covered by Article 21 includes the ‘right to die’. P. Rathinam held that Article 21 has also a positive meaning and is not just negative in its scope. in the instance of Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the legality in Section 306 of the IPC was challenged that penalized the acceptance of suicide. The court ruled in favor of P. Rathinam however, the court decided that, in the case of a terminally ill person or one who is in the PVS that dying is not a right that does not mean the end of life in a hurry, but rather speeding up the process of dying that has already begun.
In addition, it was claimed that living a life of dignity also requires an honorable death and not one that is a state of in physical and mental agony. Reliance was based on the landmark judgment in Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland where,, for the first-time in English history dying was recognized with the withdrawal of all life supporting systems, including water and food.