In a landmark decision, Supreme Court upholds passive euthanasia with guidelines


New Delhi, Mar 9 (PTI): In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court today recognised 'living will' made by terminally-ill patients for passive euthanasia.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra said passive euthanasia and advance living will are "permissible".

The bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan also laid down guidelines as to who would execute the will and how the nod for passive euthanasia would be granted by the medical board.

The apex court said that advance directives for terminally-ill patients could be issued and executed by the next friend and relatives of such person after which a medical board would consider it.

The top court said that directions and guidelines laid down by it and its directive shall remain in force till a legislation is brought on the issue.

The CJI, while reading out the judgment, said that though there were four separate opinions of the bench but all the judges were unanimous that the 'living will' should be permitted since a person cannot be allowed to continue suffering in a comatose state when he or she doesn't wish to live.

The top court had in 2011 recognised passive euthanasia in Aruna Shanbaug case by which it had permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position to make an informed decision.

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, saying safeguards were needed while taking a decision by medical boards to withdraw life support of a terminally-ill patient.

On January 15, 2016, the Centre had said the 241st report of the Law Commission stated that passive euthanasia should be allowed with certain safeguards and there was also a proposed law --Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill, 2006.

  

Top Stories

Comment on this article

  • SMR, karkala

    Fri, Mar 09 2018

    Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949
    21. Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
    Is Chief Justice of India whose known for his blunder in past like mandatory singing of national anthem in cinema hall, cauvery dispute favouring Tamil Nadu when Karnataka is under drought has once again created another blunder.
    1. Is CJI overrule of the Article 21 of the constitution?
    2. How does Supreme court know that 'camotise' is not going to recover in his lifetime?

    Only those families who can't afford the medical expenses may like to end the life. This judgement of Supreme Court from Chief Justice is murder of personal liberty and against the constitution of India.
    Jai Hind

    DisAgree Agree [1] Reply Report Abuse

  • Vincent Rodrigues, Bengaluru/Katapadi

    Fri, Mar 09 2018

    GOOD DECISION AND GREAT RELIEF INDEED

    DisAgree [1] Agree [1] Reply Report Abuse

  • Valerian Dsouza, Udupi / Mumbai

    Fri, Mar 09 2018

    It's a great relief to, people with serious illness, to their relatives, hospital and judiciary.
    Person and his/her relatives shouldn't be compelled to be treated in a hospital or home, for decease which are not curable and prolong their sufferings by living on medicines..
    No through this judgement, patient and relative with their official statement, have a option to discontinue medicines and treatment to hasten permanent relief.
    Only the issue here is people shouldn't misuse the rulings.

    DisAgree Agree [3] Reply Report Abuse

  • Jossey Saldanha, Mumbai

    Fri, Mar 09 2018

    India runs on Supreme Court ...

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse


Leave a Comment

Title: In a landmark decision, Supreme Court upholds passive euthanasia with guidelines



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.