Living will for a 'Good Death'

The decision was historic. The Supreme Court held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right, saying that an individual could make an advance “living will” that would authorise passive euthanasia (mercy killing) under certain circumstances. There have been several cases where terminally ill people or those who are in vegetative conditions have pleaded for mercy killing to the President. There have been cases from Rajasthan also. A daily wager-couple of Sallada village of Udaipur approached the state government for mercy killing of their paralysed children (two), who could not even move. Similarly, an HIV patient from Jodhpur sought mercy killing after being denied treatment at government hospital.

The apex court said in its verdict that a person could prepare a “living will”, under which the withdrawal of life-support system could be authorised if he reached an irreversible stage of terminal illness in the medical view.

The apex court delivered its verdict on a public interest litigation filed in 2005 by an NGO called Common Cause and argued by lawyer Prashant Bhushan. The apex court had sought the Centre’s response on the plea that sought the declaration of ‘right to die with dignity’ as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 (right to life) of the Constitution.

It is not the first time that the issue had come in reference of the court.  The apex court in 2016 had stayed an order of Rajasthan High Court that had criminalised  the practice of Santhara, (a Jain community ritual of fast until death). The supreme court in its previous decisions had also decriminalized suicide and justices have at instances even expressed opinion of the issue be relieved from legal boundations.

“There have been historical and mythological references that hold the practice of voluntary rejection of life, the issue had arrived with these being associated with suicide and the western perspective towards the subject. However, the recent decision of apex court is revolutionary and in detail addresses a need of a legal framework that existed for long,” says retired Justice Panachand Jain.

Prashant Bhushan appeared for NGO:

Appearing for the NGO Common Cause, advocate Prashant Bhushan had said that since a patient in a coma could not express his or her wish to end his or her life, the law should allow them to put it down in writing in advance so that they should not be tortured. In the absence of a law authorising doctors to do so, they keep incurable patients on life support, he had said.

Strict conditions:

SC allowed any person to prepare a living will, but under certain strict conditions. The will would be made by a person in his normal state of health and mind. As per the conditions, the life support system could be turned off only after the statutory medical board declared the patient in question to be incurable.  The SC said that its guidelines and directives would remain in force until a legislation was brought regarding the issue.

What is Passive Euthanasia:

Passive euthanasia is usually withdrawing medical treatment with the deliberate intention of causing the patient’s death. For example, if a patient requires ventilator to survive, the doctors disconnect the ventilator machine, allowing the patient to die soon. This form of euthanasia is different from “active” euthanasia, or simply euthanasia, where the death is caused by the use of lethal substances. It is widely considered to be criminal homicide, but voluntary passive euthanasia is considered non-criminal in several countries.

Threat:

Now a large number of requests will flood in for passive Euthanasia. Close relatives of old people and terminally ill patients will approach for voluntary mercy killing. This can be misused. Acharya Gajendra Arya, national spokesperson, Arya Samaj, said the Supreme Court judgment, allowing terminally-ill patients passive euthanasia with conditions, could be misused. Terming it "unfortunate and condemnable", he said the verdict was "painful" and would have disastrous consequences. "The right of life is in the hands of God. It was not acceptable for anyone who believes in humanity to kill a person suffering from old age or sickness due to sympathy," he said. "There have been historical and mythological references that hold the practice of voluntary rejection of life, the issue had arrived with these being associated with suicide and the western perspective towards the subject. However, the recent decision of apex court is revolutionary and in detail addresses a need of a legal framework that existed for long," says retired Justice Panachand Jain.

Jain monk welcomes decision:

Jain Monk Tarun Sagar welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision saying it coincided with the tenets of Jainism. “The whole world takes birth crying, but Mahavira taught us to die laughing. Today, the Supreme Court has given a historical ruling, which has been a law in Jainism for ages. I thank the Supreme Court (for the verdict),” the monk said.

Medical fraternity hail judgement:

Health experts welcomed the verdict as “long overdue”, saying that the decision was in the right path to ensure “right to die with dignity” for everyone. “It is a landmark decision in a resource-constrained country and would save a lot of salvageable patients by giving them opportunity to avail ventilator support,” said Dr Rakesh Solanki, senior surgeon, said.

Mercy Killing possible without living will, too:

In such a case where there is no living will that has been framed, for passive euthanasia, the family members of a terminally ill person could approach the high court under Article 226, Bar & Bench reported. According to the site, detailed guidelines on how to deal with such pleas have also been laid down.

Countries which practice Euthanasia

Euthanasia conducted with the consent of the patient is termed “voluntary euthanasia”, which is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the US states of Oregon and Washington.

What is Living Will

It is a written document allowing a patient to provide explicit instructions in advance regarding the medical treatment that is to be administered when he or she is terminally ill or no longer capable of expressing informed consent. The living will includes authorising a patient’s family to switch off the life-support system if a medical board declares that the person is beyond medical help.

Cases of Euthanasia will flow

A day after Supreme Court has allowed passive euthanasia (mercy killing), a 16-year-old rape survivor in Bharatpur has appealed to the Prime Minister for Mercy Killing. The rape survivor is anguished over non action on culprit despite repeated complaints to the police. The survivor says that two youth raped her after taking her to their home and videographed the act for blackmailing. They kept on raping her and when she refused they made the video viral. “I am tortured every day. Police is not listening. My life has become hell. I have appealed the PM to allow me to kill myself,” she said. Such cases will flood offices of President, Prime Minister and Judges for Mercy Killing as people have a misnomer that anyone can ask for euthanasia.