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:
Written By:
Harshita Chaarag
IV Year
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
Post a Comment