Will the right to euthanasia be available in India? Supreme Court is busy in simplifying the provisions related to it, there may be some amendments
The Supreme Court legalized euthanasia in 2018, but even after the order, the right to die remains mired in a legal quandary. A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court to make euthanasia simple and easy. A five-judge bench is hearing the matter. The bench has agreed to further simplify the process during the hearing on Wednesday.
The Supreme Court has agreed to reform the complex process of euthanasia and make it easier. The court has said that the government should also make a law on this, so that patients suffering from serious illness can die peacefully. A five-judge constitutional bench of Justice KM Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice CT Ravikumar is hearing this.
The Supreme Court had approved ‘euthanasia’ on 9 March 2018. At that time, the court had said that under Article 21 of the Constitution, just as a person has the right to live, he also has the right to die with dignity. The court had approved ‘passive euthanasia’. In this, the treatment of a sick person is stopped, so that he may die. He had also issued guidelines for this, but even after this the process of euthanasia is very complicated.
Court does not want too much change in the order
During the hearing in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, the bench considered aspects of the existing provisions amid suggestions by the petitioners to simplify the process of euthanasia. The bench said that they can pass orders in open court as they are not inclined to modify the orders too much. However, the health ministry and the petitioners pointed out the complexity and constraints of the process while suggesting changes to the existing provisions.
The needy are unable to take advantage of the decision
According to the information, senior advocate Arvind Datar of the petitioner NGO Common Cause and Dr. RR Kishore of the Indian Society for Health Law and Ethics (ISLE) gave written suggestions regarding the necessary changes in the 2018 decision of the apex court. The hearing in this matter is going on since last week.
Doctor-turned-lawyer Dr. RR Kishore said- “The current process is cumbersome and time consuming which is beyond the reach of people who are suffering from serious ailments. It doesn’t seem practical to take advantage of the court’s decision.” He further said, “Despite euthanasia being legalized in the country, people suffering from life-threatening diseases are not able to use it.
Dr. Kishore said- “The purpose of the advance directive is to create a smooth and seamless process for people seeking euthanasia due to terminal illness. His decision should not be subject to the consent of any third party. He said that the views, attitudes and concepts of the guardian or close relative may be different from those of the euthanasia seeker and they may refuse to give consent for euthanasia.
At the same time, senior advocate Datar also suggested that instead of going through the tedious process of verification and approval by a magistrate, the Supreme Court’s advance directive can ask the patient to sign a notary in the presence of witnesses and then digitize it as a health record.
Medical board, review board also discussed
The hearing also debated the issue of the role of the “Medical Board” and “Review Board” prescribed in the 2018 judgment. Asked if the treating doctor can be a part of the decision making process?
Additionally, Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Ajay Rastogi pointed out that a medical board consisting of three such doctors, who head various superspeciality departments, may not be available to patients in small towns or remote areas. In the written suggestions made by Advocate Datar for amendment, more circumstances have been added for the direction of advance treatment.
There is a difference in opinion and perceptions on euthanasia
Dr. RR Kishore said that there are a lot of issues related to medicine, cultural sensitivities and different perceptions of the issue, which have to be considered.
He said- There are many flaws in this matter. There is difference of opinion and perceptions in this matter. This is a very different case than normal lawsuits. In many cases, courts of the same jurisdiction have given different judgments regarding permission to withdraw medical treatment. He said, “The real challenge is how to record the advance directive and who will have the power to act on the advance directive and at what level.
Leave a Reply