A bench of the Supreme court upheld Attorney General, Vahanvati's opposition to right to die, who had termed it as "Cruel, inhuman and intolerable" and as something unknown to Indian law. " Sahanbaug has the right to live in her present state. The State that she presently is does not justify terminating her life by withdrawing hydra on/food/medical support. such acts or omissions will be cruel, inhuman and intolerable", argued Vahanvati. The union of India had taken a stand that "right to die" is not included in "right to life"- guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution.
The Bench observed that active euthanasia is illegal as there is no statutory provision to support it. But it permitted passive euthanasia subject to declaration by a High court to this effect.
Active euthanasia is a state where a patient is given a lethal injection to bring him to death, whild passive euthanasia involves withdrawing the life support system from a patient.
The bench laid down conditions for grant of permission to passive euthanasia. It said the high court will front ts approval after getting the opinion of there eminent doctors and hearing the government and the close relatives of the terminally ill patient sought to be put under passive euthanasia.
The Bench rejected the petition also on the ground of locus standi. The petitioner cannot claim to be as close and attached to Aruna as King Edward Memorial Hospital staff and nurses. the bench opened and lauded the hospital for keeping Aruna in good health.
It may recollected that the Law Commission in its 196th report had recommended withdrawal of Medical treatment to terminally ill patients; it had not been accepted by the Government
Reprted by : Lahari Communique, legal journal
No comments:
Post a Comment