Madras High Court: The Bench comprising of N. Kirubakaran and Abdul Quiddhose, JJ. dealt with a petition in which father (i.e. petitioner) of a child approached the Court seeking euthanasia, as his child’s brain was injured and continued to be in persistent vegetative state.

Petitioner in the present case approached the Court seeking mercy killing or euthanasia for his child on account of the child’s brain being dead since past 10 years. He stated that the child was diagnosed with the condition of Hypoxic-Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE) and after receiving treatments from various hospitals no sign of improvement was seen.

The notable facts as submitted by the petitioner were that the child was not aware of himself or anything happening around him as he was suffering from a severe form of brain damage in which only his reflexes worked for any movements or actions. On facing the above-stated circumstances and situation of the child, the petitioner approached the Court.

The Court on referring the decision of Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1 and by order dated 24-08-2018, appointed a 3 member search committee to nominate 3 doctors for child’s examination. On examination,n it was found that the child does not fit the category of persistent vegetative state and his condition cannot be reversed. Mr S. Raveekumar, representing Anirudha Medical Organisation (P) Ltd. and its director Dr P. Uma Maheswari convinced the Court to treat the child through Trigger Point Therapy. The results after the said therapy were seemingly good.

The matter was further listed for 08-11-2018 wherein photographs of the child were shown with a huge improvement from the Trigger Point Therapy.

Thus, the Court taking a suo motu stand impleaded Medical Council of India to answer ‘whether there is any Superspeciality Diploma or Superspeciality Course available in Trigger Point Therapy and Musculo Skeletal Therapy and how many experts are available in India for the said therapy. Central Government and Medical Council of India are also asked to submit their answers with regard to the above stated. The matter is listed for further hearing. [R. Thirumeni v. Union of India,2018 SCC OnLine Mad 3303dated 08-11-2018]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.