On the right to die with dignity, Pg7

Key Highlights:

• In 2013, Harish Rana suffered critical injuries and was in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) for 13 years.
• The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of life support for Harish Rana under the Common Cause guidelines.
• The Supreme Court recognized passive euthanasia in Aruna R. Shanbaug vs Union of India (2011) for terminally ill patients.
• The 2018 Constitution Bench’s decision in Common Cause vs Union of India permitted the withdrawal/withholding of medical treatment under Article 21.

Detailed Insights:

• The case of Harish Rana led to a discussion on the importance of life under Article 21 of the Constitution, focusing on the right to die with dignity.
• The Supreme Court's decision hinged on whether Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) qualifies as 'medical treatment' and if its withdrawal is in the patient's best interest.
• The court determined that administering CANH requires medical supervision and its withdrawal was deemed to be in Harish Rana's best interest, as continued treatment offered no therapeutic benefit.
• The Supreme Court has embedded safeguards involving primary and secondary Medical Boards to prevent misuse of the guidelines for withdrawing life support.
• The Gian Kaur vs State of Punjab (1996) case established that Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity, but initially did not include the right to die.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to live with dignity.
• Passive Euthanasia: Withholding medical treatment with the intention to allow the patient to die.
• Persistent Vegetative State (PVS): A state of severely impaired consciousness, with no awareness of self or surroundings.