NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court on Friday recognised that a terminally-ill patient or an individual in a persistent vegetative state can execute an "advance medical directive" or a "living will" to refuse medical treatment, pronouncing the right to reside with dignity additionally comprises "smoothening" the process of dying.
A five-judge charter bench headed by means of Chief Justice Dipak Misra noticed that the failure to legally recognise advance medical directives might quantity to "non-facilitation" of the right to smoothen the dying procedure and the consideration in that procedure used to be additionally part of the right to lifestyles underneath Article 21 of the Constitution.
The apex court docket laid down ideas in the case of the procedure for execution of advance directive or 'residing will' and spelt out guidelines and safeguards to provide effect to passive euthanasia in both cases, this is the place there are advance directives and the place there are none.
"The directive and guidelines shall remain in force till Parliament brings a legislation in the field," CJI Misra, writing the judgement for himself and Justice A M Khanwilkar, mentioned.
The other three judges of the bench - Justices A Okay Sikri, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan - penned separate concurring verdicts within the combined judgement running into 538 pages.
Justice Chandrachud, writing a separate 134-page verdict, mentioned that lifestyles and loss of life were "inseparable" and it used to be essential for the court docket to recognise that dignity of voters continues to be safeguarded by means of the Constitution even if the "life is seemingly lost and questions about our own mortality confront us in the twilight of existence".
"Dignity in the process of dying is as much a part of the right to life under Article 21. To deprive an individual of dignity towards the end of life is to deprive the individual of a meaningful existence. Hence, the Constitution protects the legitimate expectation of every person to lead a life of dignity until death occurs," he mentioned.
In his 192-page judgement, the CJI noted that in case of a terminally-ill patient or an individual in persistent vegetative state (PVS) the place there used to be no hope of restoration, "accelerating the process of death for reducing the period of suffering constitutes a right to live with dignity".
Right to lifestyles and liberty as envisaged underneath Article 21 is "meaningless" until it encompasses inside its sphere the individual dignity, the CJI mentioned, adding, "Though the sanctity of life has to be kept on the high pedestal yet in cases of terminally-ill persons or PVS patients where there is no hope for revival, priority shall be given to the advance directive and the right of self-determination."
Justice Sikri, who wrote a 112-page separate verdict, concurred with the instructions given by means of the CJI and was hoping that the Legislature would step in on the earliest and enact a comprehensive law on 'residing will/advance directive' so that "there is a proper statutory regime to govern various aspects and nuances thereof which also take care of the apprehensions that are expressed against euthanasia."
Writing a separate but concurring 100-page judgement, Justice Bhushan reiterated the conclusion arrived at in a 1996 judgement by means of a charter bench within the Gian Kaur case that the right to die with dignity is a basic right.
"We declare that an adult human being having mental capacity to take an informed decision has the right to refuse medical treatment, including withdrawal from life-saving devices," Justice Bhushan mentioned, adding that an individual of "competent mental faculty" is entitled to execute an advance medical directive in response to the safeguards spelt out by means of the court docket.
The most sensible court docket additionally held that after passive euthanasia as a "situational palliative measure becomes applicable", the most efficient passion of the patient shall override the state passion.
The CJI mentioned though there used to be no legal framework in India as regards to the development medical directive, the apex court docket used to be obliged to offer protection to the right of the voters enshrined underneath Article 21 of the Constitution.
"In our considered opinion, advance medical directive would serve as a fruitful means to facilitate the fructification of the sacrosanct right to life with dignity," he mentioned.
"The said directive, we think, will dispel many a doubt at the relevant time of need during the course of treatment of the patient. That apart, it will strengthen the mind of the treating doctors as they will be in a position to ensure, after being satisfied, that they are acting in a lawful manner," the CJI mentioned.
The apex court docket additionally laid down guidelines as to who may execute the development directive and how, what will have to it comprise, how will have to it be recorded and preserved, when and by means of whom can it be given effect to, what if permission is refused by means of the medical board and in addition within the tournament of revocation or inapplicability of advance directive.
The court docket additionally spelt the tips to be followed in cases the place there can be no advance directive, pronouncing that such persons can't be "alienated".
The verdict by means of the charter bench got here on a PIL filed by means of NGO Common Cause in the hunt for popularity of 'residing will' made by means of terminally-ill sufferers for passive euthanasia.
A five-judge charter bench headed by means of Chief Justice Dipak Misra noticed that the failure to legally recognise advance medical directives might quantity to "non-facilitation" of the right to smoothen the dying procedure and the consideration in that procedure used to be additionally part of the right to lifestyles underneath Article 21 of the Constitution.
The apex court docket laid down ideas in the case of the procedure for execution of advance directive or 'residing will' and spelt out guidelines and safeguards to provide effect to passive euthanasia in both cases, this is the place there are advance directives and the place there are none.
"The directive and guidelines shall remain in force till Parliament brings a legislation in the field," CJI Misra, writing the judgement for himself and Justice A M Khanwilkar, mentioned.
The other three judges of the bench - Justices A Okay Sikri, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan - penned separate concurring verdicts within the combined judgement running into 538 pages.
Justice Chandrachud, writing a separate 134-page verdict, mentioned that lifestyles and loss of life were "inseparable" and it used to be essential for the court docket to recognise that dignity of voters continues to be safeguarded by means of the Constitution even if the "life is seemingly lost and questions about our own mortality confront us in the twilight of existence".
"Dignity in the process of dying is as much a part of the right to life under Article 21. To deprive an individual of dignity towards the end of life is to deprive the individual of a meaningful existence. Hence, the Constitution protects the legitimate expectation of every person to lead a life of dignity until death occurs," he mentioned.
In his 192-page judgement, the CJI noted that in case of a terminally-ill patient or an individual in persistent vegetative state (PVS) the place there used to be no hope of restoration, "accelerating the process of death for reducing the period of suffering constitutes a right to live with dignity".
Right to lifestyles and liberty as envisaged underneath Article 21 is "meaningless" until it encompasses inside its sphere the individual dignity, the CJI mentioned, adding, "Though the sanctity of life has to be kept on the high pedestal yet in cases of terminally-ill persons or PVS patients where there is no hope for revival, priority shall be given to the advance directive and the right of self-determination."
Justice Sikri, who wrote a 112-page separate verdict, concurred with the instructions given by means of the CJI and was hoping that the Legislature would step in on the earliest and enact a comprehensive law on 'residing will/advance directive' so that "there is a proper statutory regime to govern various aspects and nuances thereof which also take care of the apprehensions that are expressed against euthanasia."
Writing a separate but concurring 100-page judgement, Justice Bhushan reiterated the conclusion arrived at in a 1996 judgement by means of a charter bench within the Gian Kaur case that the right to die with dignity is a basic right.
"We declare that an adult human being having mental capacity to take an informed decision has the right to refuse medical treatment, including withdrawal from life-saving devices," Justice Bhushan mentioned, adding that an individual of "competent mental faculty" is entitled to execute an advance medical directive in response to the safeguards spelt out by means of the court docket.
The most sensible court docket additionally held that after passive euthanasia as a "situational palliative measure becomes applicable", the most efficient passion of the patient shall override the state passion.
The CJI mentioned though there used to be no legal framework in India as regards to the development medical directive, the apex court docket used to be obliged to offer protection to the right of the voters enshrined underneath Article 21 of the Constitution.
"In our considered opinion, advance medical directive would serve as a fruitful means to facilitate the fructification of the sacrosanct right to life with dignity," he mentioned.
"The said directive, we think, will dispel many a doubt at the relevant time of need during the course of treatment of the patient. That apart, it will strengthen the mind of the treating doctors as they will be in a position to ensure, after being satisfied, that they are acting in a lawful manner," the CJI mentioned.
The apex court docket additionally laid down guidelines as to who may execute the development directive and how, what will have to it comprise, how will have to it be recorded and preserved, when and by means of whom can it be given effect to, what if permission is refused by means of the medical board and in addition within the tournament of revocation or inapplicability of advance directive.
The court docket additionally spelt the tips to be followed in cases the place there can be no advance directive, pronouncing that such persons can't be "alienated".
The verdict by means of the charter bench got here on a PIL filed by means of NGO Common Cause in the hunt for popularity of 'residing will' made by means of terminally-ill sufferers for passive euthanasia.
SC recognises 'living will' of terminally ill patient to die with dignity
![SC recognises 'living will' of terminally ill patient to die with dignity]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
March 09, 2018
Rating:
