On passive euthanasia, over to the Centre, Pg12

Key Highlights:

• The Supreme Court allowed the removal of clinically administered nutrition (CAN) for Harish Rana, a 31-year-old quadriplegic, paving the way for passive euthanasia.
• In 2018, the SC had legalized passive euthanasia, but the process for withdrawing life-sustaining treatment remained complex.
• The court's decision overrules previous jurisprudence that considered feeding tubes not to be medical interventions.
• The SC has asked the Centre to frame legislation regarding passive euthanasia to prevent potential abuse.

Detailed Insights:

• The judiciary has been cautious about euthanasia, balancing human dignity with the risk of misuse and manipulation of living wills.
• The case of Aruna Shanbaug v Union of India set the stage for the legalization of passive euthanasia under strict conditions.
• Common Cause v Union of India (2018) recognized passive euthanasia and introduced living wills, but hospitals found the procedure cumbersome.
• The SC clarified the role of medical boards in evaluating such cases five years later, streamlining the process.
• Experts have warned that passive euthanasia can be prone to abuse, necessitating comprehensive legislation to safeguard against manipulation and coercion.
• The Right to Life has been increasingly nuanced by the SC, leading to humane answers for terminally ill patients.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment with the intention to allow a terminally ill patient to die.
• Living Will: A legal document specifying a person's wishes regarding medical treatment if they become incapacitated.
• Quadriplegia: Paralysis affecting all four limbs, resulting in loss of movement and sensation.