SC’s Landmark Judgment: Passive Euthanasia Permissible
The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment, pronounced passive euthanasia as permissible under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The main ground for adjudication before the apex court was whether a person who advertently refuses to accept life saving treatments or food in order to die, commits a crime under IPC section 309 (suicide attempt).
In India, encouraging suicide (IPC section 306) and suicide attempt (IPC section 309) are held as criminal offences, which is not the case with several other countries, such as the US. Therefore, in its judgment, the court demarcated between active and passive euthanasia.
Passive vs. Active Euthanasia
Non-voluntary passive euthanasia would imply that the person in not in the condition to decide for himself/herself, which means, that s/he is in coma or in unconscious and that the individual’s life is ended through the removal of the life support system. On the other hand, active euthanasia implies a case where life is ended by an initiative of administering a lethal injection to an individual in order to terminate his/her life.
The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Misra, said that passive euthanasia will be permitted on a case-by-case basis. “The withdrawal of life support by the doctors is in law considered as an omission and not a positive step to terminate life. The latter would be euthanasia, a criminal offence under the present law in UK, USA and India.”
Aruna’s Story
This landmark judgment was pronounced in relation to a journalist-writer, Pinki Virani’s plea to allow passive euthanasia for Aruna Shanbhag. Shanbagh, a nurse working in the King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, was sexually assaulted by the hospital ward boy, Sohanlal Bhartha Walmiki. As a result of the assault, she went into a vegetative state and has been in that condition since 37 years.
sir i am studying LLB Final year i got a problem in moot court regarding a case that a 20 years boy injured in accident and he was in perssistent vegetative state for three years in this situation the boy cannot neither he could see,hear or feel any thing.since there is no hope of his revival the parents of rajesh requested their family doctor to administer a lethal injection to him as they are unable to see his suffering one day rajesh died by withdraw life supporting system a close relative of rajeshmr dwark lodged a complaint in the nearest police by raising doubts on death police registered FIR investigated the matter and charged the doctor and parents with 302/34.the district and sessions court convicted all the three accused with life imprisonment.all the accused preferred an appeal to high court .
suggest arguments for state and appellants
Aruna's condition is really a big challenge for medical science which could not do anything. As regards law aspect, no one should be allowed to terminate their life, because it may become a illustration means if any person is on the bed, and his/her family member do not wish to care him/her, and run to court seeking permission to terminate the life of the sufferer. The Apex Court really made beautiful differentiation between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Also, it should be verified whether Aruna got best medical treatment or not, then some decision may be arrived.
Post new comment