Top court’s landmark first ever order on emotive issue
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the withdrawal of artificial life support to a 32-year-old man, in a coma for more than 13 years, saying that the government should consider bringing comprehensive legislation on passive euthanasia.
In the top court’s first ever order on the emotive issue, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K V Viswanathan directed AIIMS-Delhi to ensure that life support is withdrawn with a tailored plan so that dignity is maintained.
Passive euthanasia is the intentional act of letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing life support or the treatment necessary to keep him alive.
The patient, Ghaziabad’s Harish Rana, who was a BTech student at Panjab University and a football-loving sporty young man, suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation in 2013 and has been in a coma since.
“In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we record our satisfaction that the twin legal requirements for the withdrawal and withholding of medical treatment have been unequivocally met. First, it is established that the Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration currently being administered to the applicant constitutes ‘medical treatment’”.
“Secondly, it has been conclusively determined that the continued administration of the same is no longer in the ‘best interests’ of the applicant. In light of the unanimous consensus arrived at by the parents/next of kin and the constituted medical boards respectively, we are of the opinion that the medical treatment ought not to be prolonged any further,” the bench said in a 338-page judgment.
“The right to die with dignity is inseparable from the right to receive quality palliative and End Of Life care. It is imperative to ensure that the withdrawal process is not marred by pain, agony, or suffering,” it added.
The top court noted that Rana survived only through clinically administered nutrition via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes, and medical boards had unanimously concluded that continuation of treatment merely prolonged biological existence without any possibility of recovery.
When primary and secondary boards had certified withdrawal of life support, there was no need for judicial intervention, the apex court said. The court made a special mention of Rana’s parents, expressing its appreciation to them for showing immense love and care for their son. “His family never left his side,” it said.
“The issues in this matter have once again brought to the fore the fragility and transient nature of the life we live, and how swiftly the tide can turn for the worse. For the past thirteen years, the applicant has lived a life defined by pain and suffering. A suffering made all the more cruel by the fact that, unlike most of us, he was stripped of the ability to even give voice to his anguish.”
“However, while this case highlights how unforgiving life can be, it is easy to lose sight of another vital fact. We note with immense respect that the applicant’s parents and siblings have stood as unyielding pillars of support. They have exhausted every effort to care for him and continue to do so with unwavering dedication. We can only place on record our deepest appreciation for their boundless love, endurance, and kindness in the face of such adversity,” the bench said.
Rana’s family had said that allowing withdrawal of artificial life support would restore his dignity after years of irreversible suffering. Shortly after the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment, a crowd gathered outside the Brahm Raj Empire society in Ghaziabad, where the family now lives.
Rashmi Nandakumar, the lawyer who represented the Ranas in the Supreme Court, said over the phone that the family members were not in a position to comment before the media.
