The status of Euthanasia under the light of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India: Difference between revisions
The status of Euthanasia under the light of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India (view source)
Revision as of 11:19, 4 July 2024
, 4 JulyArticle
(Article) |
(Article) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
= '''Introduction''' = | = '''Introduction''' = | ||
The constitution of India under '''Article 21''' guarantees '''right to life''' as a fundamental right to all its citizens as it states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by the law <sup><ref>#cite_note-1 [1]</ref></sup>. But over the time the judicial interpretation of article 21 has evolved expanding its scope from mere survival to a dignified life including right to health, privacy, clean environment and livelihood. Its interpretation has further been expanded by the judiciary in the landmark case of the '''Aruna Shanbaug vs union of India & Ors''' to include the '''right to die with dignity, '''it has paved the way for the legalisation of passive euthanasia in India. | The constitution of India under '''Article 21''' guarantees '''right to life''' as a fundamental right to all its citizens as it states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by the law <sup><sup><sup><ref>#cite_note-1 [1]</ref></sup></sup></sup>. But over the time the judicial interpretation of article 21 has evolved expanding its scope from mere survival to a dignified life including right to health, privacy, clean environment and livelihood. Its interpretation has further been expanded by the judiciary in the landmark case of the '''Aruna Shanbaug vs union of India & Ors''' to include the '''right to die with dignity, '''it has paved the way for the legalisation of passive euthanasia in India. | ||
== 1) Facts of the case<sup><ref>#cite_note-2 [2]</ref></sup> == | == 1) Facts of the case<sup><sup><sup><ref>#cite_note-2 [2]</ref></sup></sup></sup> == | ||
The petitioner, Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug was a nurse in King Edward memorial hospital, Mumbai. On 27<sup>th</sup> November,1973, a hospital sweeper assaulted her, wrapping a dog chain around her neck and violently pulling her back with. He wanted to rape her but after discovering that she was menstruating, he sodomized her. To disarm her during this act, he twisted the chain around her neck, which resulted in lack of supply of oxygen to the brain leading to brain damage. The next day the cleaner of the hospital found her lying on the floor with blood all over in an unconscious condition. 36 years has passed since the incident and now she is about 60 years of old. She had been serving only on the mashed food. It was alleged that Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug was in a persistent vegetative state and was virtually a dead person and has no state of awareness, and her brain was virtually dead. She can neither see, nor hear anything nor can she express herself or communicate, in any manner whatsoever. Mashed food was put in her mouth, she was not able to chew or taste any food. She was not even aware that food has been put in her mouth. She was not able to swallow any liquid food, which shows that the food goes down on its own and not because of any effort on her part. Further it was alleged that there was slightest any possibility left for improvement in her condition and as her body lies on the bed in the KEM Hospital, Mumbai like a dead animal, and this has been the position for the last 36 years. The prayer of the petitioner was that the respondents be directed to stop feeding Aruna and let her die peacefully . | The petitioner, Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug was a nurse in King Edward memorial hospital, Mumbai. On 27<sup>th</sup> November,1973, a hospital sweeper assaulted her, wrapping a dog chain around her neck and violently pulling her back with. He wanted to rape her but after discovering that she was menstruating, he sodomized her. To disarm her during this act, he twisted the chain around her neck, which resulted in lack of supply of oxygen to the brain leading to brain damage. The next day the cleaner of the hospital found her lying on the floor with blood all over in an unconscious condition. 36 years has passed since the incident and now she is about 60 years of old. She had been serving only on the mashed food. It was alleged that Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug was in a persistent vegetative state and was virtually a dead person and has no state of awareness, and her brain was virtually dead. She can neither see, nor hear anything nor can she express herself or communicate, in any manner whatsoever. Mashed food was put in her mouth, she was not able to chew or taste any food. She was not even aware that food has been put in her mouth. She was not able to swallow any liquid food, which shows that the food goes down on its own and not because of any effort on her part. Further it was alleged that there was slightest any possibility left for improvement in her condition and as her body lies on the bed in the KEM Hospital, Mumbai like a dead animal, and this has been the position for the last 36 years. The prayer of the petitioner was that the respondents be directed to stop feeding Aruna and let her die peacefully . | ||
| Line 21: | Line 22: | ||
== 3) Analysis of the case == | == 3) Analysis of the case == | ||
Them court defined euthanasia or mercy killing as an act or practice of painlessly putting to the death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures<sup><ref>#cite_note-3 [3]</ref></sup>. It is of 2 types that is active euthanasia and a passive euthanasia. | Them court defined euthanasia or mercy killing as an act or practice of painlessly putting to the death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures<sup><sup><sup><ref>#cite_note-3 [3]</ref></sup></sup></sup>. It is of 2 types that is active euthanasia and a passive euthanasia. | ||
'''i) Active euthanasia''': it occurs when the medical professionals, or another person, deliberately do something that causes the patient to die<sup><ref>#cite_note-4 [4]</ref></sup> . | '''i) Active euthanasia''': it occurs when the medical professionals, or another person, deliberately do something that causes the patient to die<sup><sup><sup><ref>#cite_note-4 [4]</ref></sup></sup></sup> . | ||
'''ii) Passive euthanasia:''' it''' '''occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive<sup><ref>#cite_note-5 [5]</ref></sup> . | '''ii) Passive euthanasia:''' it''' '''occurs when the patient dies because the medical professionals either don't do something necessary to keep the patient alive, or when they stop doing something that is keeping the patient alive<sup><sup><sup><ref>#cite_note-5 [5]</ref></sup></sup></sup> . | ||
#switch off life-support machines | #switch off life-support machines | ||
| Line 31: | Line 32: | ||
#don't carry out a life-extending operation | #don't carry out a life-extending operation | ||
#don't give life-extending drugs | #don't give life-extending drugs | ||
| Line 41: | Line 40: | ||
The interpretation of Article 21 of the constitution of India has evolved over years the to include from mere right to life to right to live with dignity. In Indian context, the right to die has evolved significantly through the landmark cases such as Gian Kaur vs. state of Punjab in 1966, Aaruna Shanbaug v. union of India in 2011 and finally the common cause v. union of India in 2018. | The interpretation of Article 21 of the constitution of India has evolved over years the to include from mere right to life to right to live with dignity. In Indian context, the right to die has evolved significantly through the landmark cases such as Gian Kaur vs. state of Punjab in 1966, Aaruna Shanbaug v. union of India in 2011 and finally the common cause v. union of India in 2018. | ||
'''Gain Kaur vs. state of Punjab ''': in this case, supreme court ruled that the right to life under article 21 does not include the right to die. The court upheld the validity of section 309 of the Indian penal code, which criminalizes attempting to suicide, ruling that life and death are natural process and that right to life does not include right to die <sup><ref>#cite_note-6 [6]</ref></sup>. | '''Gain Kaur vs. state of Punjab ''': in this case, supreme court ruled that the right to life under article 21 does not include the right to die. The court upheld the validity of section 309 of the Indian penal code, which criminalizes attempting to suicide, ruling that life and death are natural process and that right to life does not include right to die <sup><sup><sup><ref>#cite_note-6 [6]</ref></sup></sup></sup>. | ||
'''Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India & Ors. ''': In this landmark case the court differentiate active and passive euthanasia. Further the supreme court permitted passive euthanasia under strict guidelines, allowing the withdrawal of life support for the persons in the persistent vegetative state . In this case, court ruled that right to life includes right to live with dignity, and in this case, the medical condition of Aruna Shanbaug was incurable and irreversible, and prolonging medical support infringes her right to live life with dignity. Further the court laid down specific procedure to be followed for passive euthanasia . They are as follows: | '''Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India & Ors. ''': In this landmark case the court differentiate active and passive euthanasia. Further the supreme court permitted passive euthanasia under strict guidelines, allowing the withdrawal of life support for the persons in the persistent vegetative state . In this case, court ruled that right to life includes right to live with dignity, and in this case, the medical condition of Aruna Shanbaug was incurable and irreversible, and prolonging medical support infringes her right to live life with dignity. Further the court laid down specific procedure to be followed for passive euthanasia . They are as follows: | ||
| Line 50: | Line 49: | ||
The court in this case also held that active euthanasia which includes active intervention to end the life, remains illegal in India<sup><sup><sup><ref>#cite_note-7 [7]</ref></sup></sup></sup>. | |||
'''Common cause vs union of India ''': in this case, the court further expanded on right to die with dignity. The court recognises the legality of living wills and advanced directives, allowing individual to outline the preferences for dying. It further issued guidelines regarding Advance Directives which are documents that detail the choices of the patient regarding treatment decisions along with who would be competent to take decisions on their behalf in case of their inability to do so. While the guidelines were amended in February 2023 to facilitate easier implementation of ADs to larger sections of society, they still place an onerous burden on each applicant. Each AD is subject to the opinion of two medical boards, and the decisions of the boards can only be challenged via writ petition under Article 226. The current position puts the onus largely on the families of the patients, who are subjected to a rigorous bureaucratic process to give effect to the ADs, which are notarised documents signed and testified in front of a judicial magistrate <sup><sup><sup><ref>#cite_note-8 [8]</ref></sup></sup></sup>. | |||
'''Common cause vs union of India ''': in this case, the court further expanded on right to die with dignity. The court recognises the legality of living wills and advanced directives, allowing individual to outline the preferences for dying. It further issued guidelines regarding Advance Directives which are documents that detail the choices of the patient regarding treatment decisions along with who would be competent to take decisions on their behalf in case of their inability to do so. While the guidelines were amended in February 2023 to facilitate easier implementation of ADs to larger sections of society, they still place an onerous burden on each applicant. Each AD is subject to the opinion of two medical boards, and the decisions of the boards can only be challenged via writ petition under Article 226. The current position puts the onus largely on the families of the patients, who are subjected to a rigorous bureaucratic process to give effect to the ADs, which are notarised documents signed and testified in front of a judicial magistrate <sup><ref>#cite_note-8 [8]</ref></sup>. | |||
= '''Conclusion''' = | = '''Conclusion''' = | ||
| Line 60: | Line 58: | ||
= '''Citation''' = | = '''Citation''' = | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
NewPP limit report | NewPP limit report | ||
Cached time: | Cached time: 20240703170325 | ||
Cache expiry: 86400 | Cache expiry: 86400 | ||
Reduced expiry: false | Reduced expiry: false | ||
Complications: | Complications: | ||
CPU time usage: 0. | CPU time usage: 0.018 seconds | ||
Real time usage: 0. | Real time usage: 0.020 seconds | ||
Preprocessor visited node count: | Preprocessor visited node count: 130/1000000 | ||
Post‐expand include size: 0/2097152 bytes | Post‐expand include size: 0/2097152 bytes | ||
Template argument size: 0/2097152 bytes | Template argument size: 0/2097152 bytes | ||
| Line 91: | Line 72: | ||
Expensive parser function count: 0/100 | Expensive parser function count: 0/100 | ||
Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 | Unstrip recursion depth: 0/20 | ||
Unstrip post‐expand size: | Unstrip post‐expand size: 1002/5000000 bytes | ||
--><!-- | --><!-- | ||
Transclusion expansion time report | Transclusion expansion time report | ||
100.00% 0.000 1 -total | 100.00% 0.000 1 -total | ||
--><!-- Saved in parser cache with key aklcwuks_wiki-wiki_:pcache:idhash:152593-0!canonical and timestamp | --><!-- Saved in parser cache with key aklcwuks_wiki-wiki_:pcache:idhash:152593-0!canonical and timestamp 20240703170325 and revision id 388779. Rendering was triggered because: api-parse | ||
--> | --> | ||
[[Category:Article]] | [[Category:Article]] | ||