The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed life support to be withdrawn for a 31-year-old man who has been in a permanent vegetative state since 2013, Bar and Bench reported.
This was the first instance in which the court’s directions on passive euthanasia, laid down in a 2018 judgement, have been applied.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the family of Harish Rana, who suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in August 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of a building in Chandigarh. He has been in a vegetative state since then.
In 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court had recognised and given sanction for passive euthanasia, and allowed living wills or advance directives.
In that judgement, the court had ruled that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity. The Supreme Court had held that the constitutional right includes the smoothening of the process of dying in case of a terminally ill patient or a person in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.
Rana’s family had approached the court seeking permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment in the form of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration administered through a PEG tube.
A Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastronomy tube is a device inserted through the abdominal wall directly into the stomach to deliver nutrition, fluids and medication.
On Wednesday, the court noted that continuing the treatment was only prolonging Rana’s biological existence without any therapeutic improvement, Live Law reported.
It also observed that both the primary and secondary medical boards, along with Rana’s parents, had reached the opinion that the clinically assisted nutrition and hydration should be discontinued as it was not in the best interest of the patient.
The court stated that when primary and secondary boards have certified withdrawal of life support, there is no need for the court’s intervention, Live Law reported. However, it added that since this was the first case to reach the court, it was appropriate to examine the matter.
The bench then directed that the withdrawal of life support must be carried out in a dignified manner.
It also recommended that the Union government bring in comprehensive legislation on passive euthanasia.
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!