Euthanasia in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on

Euthanasia

Types

Animal
Child
Voluntary
Non-voluntary
Involuntary

Views

Religious
Buddhist
Catholic

Groups

Compassion and Choices

Dignitas
Dignity in Dying
Exit International

People

Jack Kevorkian
Philip Nitschke
Barbara Coombs Lee
 Books

Final Exit
The Peaceful Pill Handbook

Jurisdictions

Australia
Canada
India
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States

Laws

Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 (Australia)

Oregon Death with Dignity Act
Washington Death with Dignity Act

Court cases

Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)

Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
Baxter v. Montana (2009)

Alternatives

Assisted suicide
Palliative care
Principle of double effect
Palliative sedation

Other issues

Suicide tourism
Groningen Protocol
Euthanasia device

Resistance

Right to life
Culture of life
Euthanasia and the slippery slope

v
t
 e

Passive euthanasia is legal in India.[1] On 7 March 2011 the Supreme Court of India legalised
passive euthanasiaby means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent
vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna
Shanbaug, who had been in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) until her death in 2015.
In March 2011, the Supreme Court of India, passed a historic judgement-law permitting Passive
Euthanasia in the country. This judgment was passed in wake of Pinki Viranis plea to the highest
court in December 2009 under the Constitutional provision of Next Friend. Its a landmark law
which places the power of choice in the hands of the individual, over government, medical or
religious control which sees all suffering as destiny. The Supreme Court specified two
irreversible conditions to permit Passive Euthanasia Law in its 2011 Law: (I) The brain-dead for
whom the ventilator can be switched off (II) Those in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for
whom the feed can be tapered out and pain-managing palliatives be added, according to laid-
down international specifications.
The same judgement-law also asked for the scrapping of 309, the code which penalises those
who survive suicide-attempts. In December 2014, government of India declared its intention to do
so.
However on 25 February 2014, a three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India had termed the
judgment in theAruna Shanbaug case to be 'inconsistent in itself' and has referred the issue of
euthanasia to its five-judge Constitution bench.[2]
And on December 23, 2014, Government of India endorsed and re-validated the Passive
Euthanasia judgement-law in a Press Release, after stating in the Rajya Sabha as follows: that
The Honble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 7.3.2011 [WP (Criminal) No. 115 of
2009], while dismissing the plea for mercy killing in a particular case, laid down comprehensive
guidelines to process cases relating to passive euthanasia. Thereafter, the matter of mercy killing
was examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice and it has been decided that
since the Honble Supreme Court has already laid down the guidelines, these should be followed
and treated as law in such cases. At present, there is no proposal to enact legislation on this
subject and the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court is binding on all. The Health Minister,J P
Nadda stated this in a written reply in the Rajya Sabha.
The high court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection. In the absence of a law
regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until
the Indian parliamentenacts a suitable law.[3][4] Active euthanasia, including the administration of
lethal compounds for the purpose of ending life, is still illegal in India, and in most countries.[5]

Contents
[hide]

1 Aruna Shanbaug case

2 Supreme Court decision
3 Reference to Constitution Bench
4 Response
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

Aruna Shanbaug case[edit]

Main article: Aruna Shanbaug Case
Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse working at the King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. On
27 November 1973 when she was strangled and sodomized by Sohanlal Walmiki, a sweeper.
During the attack she was strangled with a chain, and the deprivation of oxygen has left her in a
vegetative state ever since. She has been treated at KEM since the incident and is kept alive by
feeding tube. On behalf of Aruna, her friend Pinki Virani, a social activist, filed a petition in the
Supreme Court arguing that the "continued existence of Aruna is in violation of her right to live in
dignity". The Supreme Court made its decision on 7 March 2011.[6] The court rejected the plea to
discontinue Aruna's life support but issued a set of broad guidelines legalising passive
euthanasia in India. The Supreme Court's decision to reject the discontinuation of Aruna's life
support was based on the fact that the hospital staff who treat and take care of her did not
support euthanizing her.[3]She died from pneumonia on 18 May 2015, after being in a coma for 42
years.

Supreme Court decision[edit]

While rejecting Pinki Virani's plea for Aruna Shanbaug's euthanasia, the court laid out guidelines
for passive euthanasia.[3] According to these guidelines, passive euthanasia involves the
withdrawing of treatment or food that would allow the patient to live.[5][7] Forms of active
euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds, legal in a number of nations and
jurisdictions including Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as the US states
ofWashington and Oregon, are still illegal in India.[5][8]
Elsewhere in the world active euthanasia is almost always illegal.[8] The legal status of passive
euthanasia, on the other hand, including the withdrawal of nutrition or water, varies across the
nations of the world.[9] As India had no law about euthanasia, the Supreme Court's guidelines are
law until and unless Parliament passes legislation.[5] India's Minister of Law and
Justice, Veerappa Moily, called for serious political debate over the issue.[7] The following
guidelines were laid down:

1. A decision has to be taken to discontinue life support either by the parents or the spouse
or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken
even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by
the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be taken bona fide in the
best interest of the patient.
2. Even if a decision is taken by the near relatives or doctors or next friend to withdraw life
support, such a decision requires approval from the High Court concerned.
3. When such an application is filled the Chief Justice of the High Court should forthwith
constitute a Bench of at least two Judges who should decide to grant approval or not. A
committee of three reputed doctors to be nominated by the Bench, who will give report
regarding the condition of the patient. Before giving the verdict a notice regarding the
report should be given to the close relatives and the State. After hearing the parties, the
High Court can give its verdict.

Reference to Constitution Bench[edit]

On 25 February 2014, while hearing a PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, a three-judge bench of
the Supreme Court of India observed that the judgment inAruna Shanbaug case was based on a
wrong interpretation of the constitution bench judgment in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab. Court
observed that the judgment in inconsistent in itself as though it observes that euthanasia can be
allowed only by legislature yet it goes on to lay down guidelines on the same. Therefore court
has referred the issue to a constitution bench which shall be heard by a strength of at least five
judges. Court observed:
In view of the inconsistent opinions rendered in Aruna Shanbaug (supra) and also considering
the important question of law involved which needs to be reflected in the light of social, legal,
medical and constitutional perspective, it becomes extremely important to have a clear
enunciation of law. Thus, in our cogent opinion, the question of law involved requires careful
consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court for the benefit of humanity as a whole.[2]

Response[edit]
After the court ruling The Telegraph consulted with Muslim, Hindu, Jain and Christian religious
leaders. Though generally against legalising euthanasia, Christians and the Jains thought
passive euthanasia was acceptable under some circumstances. Jains and Hindus have the
traditional rituals Santhara andPrayopavesa respectively, wherein one can end one's life by
starvation, when one feels their life is complete.[10] Some members of India's medical
establishment were skeptical about euthanasia due to the country's weak rule of law and the
large gap between the rich and the poor, which might lead to the exploitation of the elderly by
their families.[5]