{"id":193877,"date":"2018-03-09T11:04:56","date_gmt":"2018-03-09T05:34:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=193877"},"modified":"2018-03-16T12:06:51","modified_gmt":"2018-03-16T06:36:51","slug":"breaking-passive-euthanasia-permissible-human-beings-fundamental-right-die-dignity-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/09\/breaking-passive-euthanasia-permissible-human-beings-fundamental-right-die-dignity-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Passive Euthanasia is permissible; Human beings have a fundamental right to die with dignity: Supreme Court [Full Report]"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhy should I fear death?<\/p>\n

If I am, then death is not.<\/p>\n

If death is, then I am not.<\/p>\n

Why should I fear that which<\/p>\n

can only exist when I do not?\u201d – Epicurus<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is one of the several profound quotes quoted by the Constitution Bench in its 538-page long verdict on the issue of Euthanasia.<\/p>\n

In 4 separate but concurring opinions, the 5-judge Constitution Bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, Dr. DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, JJ held that the\u00a0right\u00a0to\u00a0die\u00a0with\u00a0dignity\u00a0is a\u00a0fundamental\u00a0right as held in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648<\/a> and that \u2018passive euthanasia\u2019, both, voluntary and involuntary, is permissible. The Court said:<\/p>\n

\u201cthe right to live with dignity also includes the smoothening of the process of dying in case of a terminally ill patient or a person in PVS with no hope of recovery. A failure to legally recognize advance medical directives may amount to non-facilitation of the right to smoothen the dying process and the right to live with dignity.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

CJI, for himself and Khanwilkar, J: <\/strong><\/h3>\n

Explaining why only passive euthanasia is permissible and not active euthanasia, CJI, writing for himself and Khanwilkar, J, said that there is an inherent difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia as the former entails a positive affirmative act, while the latter relates to withdrawal of life support measures or withholding of medical treatment meant for artificially prolonging life. Withdrawal of treatment in an irreversible situation is different from not treating or attending to a patient and that once passive euthanasia is recognized in law regard being had to the right to die with dignity when life is ebbing out and when the prolongation is done sans purpose, neither the social morality nor the doctors\u2018 dilemma or fear will have any place.<\/p>\n

Living Will versus Advance Medical Directive<\/strong>:<\/h4>\n

The Court also refrained from using the term \u2018living will\u2019 and said that the concept \u2018advance medical directive\u2019 should be applied in our country. To understand both the concepts, the Court also provided with the definitions:<\/p>\n

The Black’s Law Dictionary defines an Advance Medical Directive<\/strong> as,<\/p>\n

“a legal document explaining one’s wishes about medical treatment if one becomes incompetent or unable to communicate.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

A Living Will<\/strong>, on the other hand, is<\/p>\n

“a document prescribing a person’s wishes regarding the medical treatment the person would want if he was unable to share his wishes with the health care provider.”<\/em><\/p>\n

Advance Medical Directive<\/strong>:<\/h4>\n

Laying down detailed safeguards and directions with respect to Advance Medical Directive, the Court that:<\/p>\n