New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Noida district hospital to constitute a primary medical board to examine whether passive euthanasia may be permitted for a 31-year-old man who has been in a vegetative state for 12 years with 100 percent quadriplegia. The bench noted that his health has deteriorated significantly, prompting the need for a fresh medical evaluation.
Understanding Passive Euthanasia in the Legal Context
Passive euthanasia involves withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, thereby allowing a patient to die naturally. The plea has been filed by the patient’s father, who argues that his son’s prolonged suffering, worsening condition, and repeated illnesses justify allowing treatment to be withdrawn under the Supreme Court’s 2018 Common Cause judgment.
Supreme Court Directs Urgent Medical Assessment
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan asked the Noida Sector-39 district hospital to submit its report within two weeks. The court stated that once the primary board confirms whether life-sustaining treatment may be withheld, it will then consider further steps, including constituting a secondary medical board in accordance with legal guidelines.
Family Approaches Apex Court for the Second Time
This marks the second attempt by the patient’s parents to seek passive euthanasia. Last year, the Supreme Court reviewed a report from the Union Health Ministry recommending continued home care with assistance from the Uttar Pradesh government. The court had then suggested shifting the patient to a district hospital if home care proved unfeasible.
Counsel Highlights Deteriorating Health and Frequent Hospitalisation
Appearing for the father, advocate Rashmi Nandakumar told the bench that despite extensive efforts and government assistance, the patient’s condition continues to worsen. She stressed that their request is strictly for passive euthanasia, not active euthanasia, and is in line with the Supreme Court’s established legal framework permitting withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in extreme cases.
Court Notes “Pathetic” Condition, Orders Expedited Process
Justice Pardiwala, after reviewing the medical documents, described the man’s condition as “pathetic” and ordered that the court’s directive be immediately forwarded to the Noida hospital and to the office of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati. The court acknowledged the extraordinary hardship faced by the family, who have reportedly sold their home to sustain his care.
Past Legal Obstacles and High Court Findings
Earlier, both the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court had refused to permit passive euthanasia because the patient is not on mechanical ventilation. The courts determined that being fed through a tube does not meet the legal criteria for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. The Delhi High Court had emphasised that he is not terminally ill nor dependent on external life-support machines.
Long Legal Journey for Parents Seeking Relief
The case dates back to 2013 when the man, then a student at Punjab University, suffered severe head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his accommodation. Bedridden for over a decade, he remains entirely dependent on caregivers. While the law prohibits active euthanasia, the Supreme Court is now revisiting the possibility of passive euthanasia due to his prolonged vegetative state and the worsening burden on his ageing parents.
