Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Subramonium Prasad, J
HARISH RANA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P.(C) 4927/2024
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment on euthanasia:
Legal Status of Euthanasia * Active euthanasia is impermissible and not covered under the right to life (Article 21), even if the objective is to relieve pain or suffering (!) (!) . * Passive euthanasia is lawful and legally permissible under strict conditions, involving the withdrawal of life-saving treatment by a competent patient or a decision made for an incompetent patient (!) (!) . * The "right to life" under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity, encompassing a dignified procedure of death up to the point of natural life (!) .
Definitions and Types * Euthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable disease or in an irreversible coma, though the term has no universally accepted philosophical core (!) . * Legally, euthanasia is recognized as two distinct types: * Active Euthanasia: Causing death by administering lethal injections or drugs; generally impermissible except in specific jurisdictions like Canada and certain US states (!) . * Passive Euthanasia: Occurring when medical practitioners do not provide or withdraw life-sustaining treatment (e.g., disconnecting ventilators or feeding tubes), where the death is attributed to the underlying condition rather than the omission (!) . * Other classifications include voluntary (patient requests), non-voluntary (patient cannot express views), and involuntary (patient's wishes ignored), though the legal framework focuses on active vs. passive (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Criteria for Passive Euthanasia * Passive euthanasia is permissible when a person is only kept alive mechanically (e.g., via heart-lung machines or ventilators) and there is no plausible possibility of recovery, especially if the condition has persisted for a long period (e.g., several years) (!) (!) . * It applies to cases where the patient is in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) and is "dead" in a clinical sense, though this differs from brain death where the brain stem continues to function (!) (!) . * A decision to withdraw life support must be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient by parents, spouse, close relatives, or doctors acting as next friends (!) . * Such a decision requires approval from the High Court to prevent misuse, such as inheritance fraud by relatives (!) (!) .
Application to the Present Case * The petitioner, who suffered head injuries resulting in a Permanent Vegetative State and Quadriplegia, is not being kept alive mechanically and is able to sustain himself without external aid (!) . * Since the petitioner is not on life support and is not terminally ill, the request for passive euthanasia is legally untenable (!) . * Consequently, the court denied the request to constitute a Medical Board for passive euthanasia and dismissed the Writ Petition (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for passive euthanasia due to the petitioner's medical condition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal complexities of euthanasia and the dignity of patients. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's denial of the petitioner's request. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction in the nature of Certiorari to constitute a Medical Board to examine the health condition of the Petitioner for administration of passive euthanasia.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner, who is about 30 years old, was a student of Punjab University. He suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest house. It is stated that the Petitioner’s family has done their best to treat the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner has been confined to his bed since 2013 due to diffuse axonal injury with Permanent Vegetative state, Quadriplegia with 100% disability. The certificate of disability given to the Petitioner by the Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital Society reads as under:
3. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the family of the Petitioner has consulted various doctors and they have been informed that there is no scope of recovery of the Petitioner from the present situation. It is stated that the Petitioner has not responded for the last 11 years, and has developed deep and large bed sores which have caused further infection. It is stated that the Petitioner’s family has lost all hope for his recovery and are not in a position to take care of the Petitioner as they are getting old. It is in this situation that the Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to refer the Petitioner to a Medical Board to consider as to whether the Petitioner can be allowed to undergo passive euthanasia.
4. A Bench of five Judges of the Apex Court in Common Cause v. Union of India , (2018) 5 SCC 1 , has dealt with the issue as to whether a person should be allowed to remain in such a stage of incurable passivity suffering from pain and anguish in the name of Hippocratic oath or, for that matter, regarding the suffering as only a state of mind and a relative perception or treating the utterance of death as a “word infinitely terrible” to be a rhetoric without any meaning. In contradistinction to the same, the question that arises is, should such a person not be allowed to cross the doors of life and enter, painlessly and with dignity, into the dark tunnel of death whereafter it is said that there is resplendence. In delineation of such an issue, there emerges the question in law — Should he or she be given such treatment which has come into existence with the passage of time and progress of medical technology so that he/she exists possibly not realising what happens around him/her or should his/her individual dignity be sustained with concern by smoothening the process of dying. The Apex Court has further observed as under:
“5. The legal question does not singularly remain in the set framework of law or, for that matter, morality or dilemma of the doctors but also encapsulates social values and the family mindset to make a resolute decision which ultimately is a cause of concern for all. There is also another perspective to it. A family may not desire to go ahead with the process of treatment but is compelled to do so under social pressure especially in a different milieu, and in the case of an individual, there remains a fear of being branded that he/she, in spite of being able to provide the necessary treatment to the patient, has chosen not to do so. The social psyche constantly makes him/her feel guilty. The collective puts him at the crossroads between socially carved out “meaningful guilt” and his constant sense of rationality and individual responsibility. There has to be a legalistic approach which is essential to clear the maze and instil awareness that gradually melts the idea of “meaningful guilt” and ushers in an act of “affirmative human purpose” that puts human
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
