Jul 17 2014 : The Times of India (Delhi)
What is dignified death, asks AG
The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to adjudicate the legality of active and passive euthanasia and the emerging concept of `living will' after treading cautiously for decades on this highly emotive and legally complicated issue.The Centre objected to the exercise. Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said, “The government doesn't accept eutha nasia as a principle. Our stand on euthanasia, in whichever form, is that the court has no jurisdiction to decide this. It's for Parliament and the legislature to take a call after a thorough debate and taking into account multifarious views.“ The court agreed it was a matter of public policy and that Parliament and the legislature were competent to decide it. But counsel Prashant Bhushan, for PIL petitioner NGO Common Cause, said the issues were debated in public for decades and the legislature had not yet taken the first step.
The court wanted a country-wide debate. The Constitution bench of Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justices J S Khehar, J Chelameswar, A K Sikri and R F Nariman sought views of all states and Union Territories on the PIL in eight weeks.
It requested senior advocate T R Andhyarujina to assist the court as amicus curiae.
The issue concerns the rights of a terminally-ill person after doctors rule out chances of survival. Active euthanasia would involve a doctor injecting a lethal medicine to trigger a cardiac arrest. In passive euthanasia, doctors, with consent from kin, withdraw the life support system. Explaining “living will“, Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common Cause, said, “Given the unanimity that a person had the right to refuse a particular medicine or treatment, why should he/ she be not allowed to execute a will in sound mind saying if he/she ever slipped into a vegetative state with a terminal disease with no chance of recovery , doctors shouldn't keep him/her alive with the help of life support?
“The constitution bench should consider active euthanasia that provides an option to the terminally ill...to choose the option of the right to die.
If, after all medical interventions fail and the process of death has commenced, why should the patient not have a right to die,“ he asked.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi raised fundamental doubts: “What is dignified death? Who decides when the process of death com mences? What if medical research tomorrow finds a cure to the presently terminally-ill (sic) disease? Can the court fathom the problems and abuse that could happen in far-flung places?“ He added, “Attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 of IPC. Abetment to suicide too is an offence. Euthanasia in any form would fall within the meaning of abetment to suicide. Would `living will' not fall under expression of an intention to commit suicide? It is difficult to find a solution through a straight-jacket formula.“
The court wanted a country-wide debate. The Constitution bench of Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justices J S Khehar, J Chelameswar, A K Sikri and R F Nariman sought views of all states and Union Territories on the PIL in eight weeks.
It requested senior advocate T R Andhyarujina to assist the court as amicus curiae.
The issue concerns the rights of a terminally-ill person after doctors rule out chances of survival. Active euthanasia would involve a doctor injecting a lethal medicine to trigger a cardiac arrest. In passive euthanasia, doctors, with consent from kin, withdraw the life support system. Explaining “living will“, Prashant Bhushan, appearing for NGO Common Cause, said, “Given the unanimity that a person had the right to refuse a particular medicine or treatment, why should he/ she be not allowed to execute a will in sound mind saying if he/she ever slipped into a vegetative state with a terminal disease with no chance of recovery , doctors shouldn't keep him/her alive with the help of life support?
“The constitution bench should consider active euthanasia that provides an option to the terminally ill...to choose the option of the right to die.
If, after all medical interventions fail and the process of death has commenced, why should the patient not have a right to die,“ he asked.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi raised fundamental doubts: “What is dignified death? Who decides when the process of death com mences? What if medical research tomorrow finds a cure to the presently terminally-ill (sic) disease? Can the court fathom the problems and abuse that could happen in far-flung places?“ He added, “Attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 of IPC. Abetment to suicide too is an offence. Euthanasia in any form would fall within the meaning of abetment to suicide. Would `living will' not fall under expression of an intention to commit suicide? It is difficult to find a solution through a straight-jacket formula.“
