In a landmark judgement today, the Supreme Court바카라 웹사이트recognised that a terminally-ill patient can write a 'living will' that permits doctors to withdraw life support, saying a person with no will to live shouldn't suffer in a comatose state.
In a landmark judgement today, the Supreme Court바카라 웹사이트recognised that a terminally-ill patient can write a 'living will' that permits doctors to withdraw life support, saying a person with no will to live shouldn't suffer in a comatose state.
By permitting passive Euthanasia and 'living will' of a terminally바카라 웹사이트ill patient, the five-judge constitution bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra reflected on its 2011 precedent when it permitted doctors of a Mumbai hospital to stop force-feeding sexual assault victim Aruna Shanbaug who remained in a Persistent Vegetative State for four decades.바카라 웹사이트
Aruna Shanbaug Case And The Right To Die바카라 웹사이트
Aruna Shanbaug, a nurse at the KEM hospital, was assaulted, tied with a dog chain, and raped in the hospital basement on바카라 웹사이트November 27, 1973. Shanbaug suffered brain stem and cervical cord injury and lay in a Persistent Vegitative State (PVS) for the rest of her life.바카라 웹사이트
In 2009, journalist-Activist Pinky Virani, filed a writ petition under바카라 웹사이트Article 32 before the Supreme Court of India, seeking passive euthanasia for Shanbaug, who, she said, had died on "November 27, 1973".바카라 웹사이트
The hospital staff who had been heeding to Shanbaug, and the Bombay Municipal Corporation filed their counter-petitions, in opposition to the passive euthanasia appeal.바카라 웹사이트
In a landmark judgement in 2011, the Supreme Court had allowed doctors at the KEM Hospital to stop force-feeding Shanbaug and withdraw life support바카라 웹사이트 to deliberately end her life, on the discretion바카라 웹사이트of the doctors.바카라 웹사이트 Shanbaug died바카라 웹사이트four years later바카라 웹사이트in 2015 after being diagnosed with pneumonia.바카라 웹사이트
바카라 웹사이트In India, Passive Euthanasia Is Legal. Active Euthanasia Is Not바카라 웹사이트
The Supreme Court has made a distinction between Active and Passive Euthanasia. While passive euthanasia, described by the Supreme Court as 'withdrawing medical treatment with a deliberate intention of causing the patient‘s death' is permitted, provided guidelines and conditions are followed, active euthanasia, 'ending life through use of lethal substance' is not permitted in any circumstance.바카라 웹사이트
The SC judgement today says of passive euthanasia, 'It바카라 웹사이트does not cause death since by itself, it does not sustain life.'바카라 웹사이트
Right To Life Includes Right To Die?
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution바카라 웹사이트바카라 웹사이트provides that, “No person shall be deprived of his바카라 웹사이트life바카라 웹사이트or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Petitioners have argued that 'right to life' includes the 'right to die', a clause rejected by the Supreme Court in the Gian Kaur verdict where it maintained that 'there is no 'right to die' under Article 21 of the constitution. '
The five-judge bench in a unanimous decision today, however,바카라 웹사이트 agreed that all human beings have the 'right to die with dignity', notwithstanding the strict guidelines for permission for passive euthanasia.바카라 웹사이트
"There is no right to die‘ under Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity but in the case of a dying person who is terminally ill or in permanent vegetative state, he may be allowed a premature extinction of his life and it would not amount to a crime," read the SC judgement.바카라 웹사이트