The Supreme Court today commenced hearing the case relating to Euthanasia and Living Wills..A Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and comprising Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan heard Advocate Prashant Bhsuhan, who appeared for petitioner Common Cause and ASG PS Narasimha, who represented the Central government..In his brief submissions, Narasimha opposed the concept of a living will stating that the same can be misused. He further informed the Court that a draft bill titled “The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill” has been drafted by the Centre. Importantly, he also submitted that passive euthanasia is the law of the land and stems out of the judgment laid down by the Supreme Court in Aruna Shanbagh case..It was also his argument that the decision, whether to remove life support or not, should be taken by a medical board after examining the condition of a patient.Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO, submitted that there is a need for safeguard measures to be adopted while deciding medical cases pertaining to euthanasia. He submitted that a proper medical board must be set up to decide on the condition of patients and to determine whether the person should be removed from life support or not. He argued that when a person reaches a stage when he can no longer express himself, the medical board must examine the condition and remove him from the life support system..Justice Misra heading the bench orally observed that there are moral issues involved while making such decision..“There is a morality issue also. If everybody is to make a living will, will it be morally and socially safe.” .“Have seen in a variety of cases relatives don’t want to take the decision due to XYZ reasons.”.Justice Misra also quizzed the role of the State in taking such a decision. Bhushan responded by stating that said the obligation of the State should come into play only if there is an absence of the legal guardians..“If there is no legal guardian then states obligation comes in. If he has then it will be the decision of the legal guardians.”.The Court also suggested that the Centre should constitute proper and functional medical boards to examine the condition of patients. Hearing will continue on Wednesday.
The Supreme Court today commenced hearing the case relating to Euthanasia and Living Wills..A Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and comprising Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan heard Advocate Prashant Bhsuhan, who appeared for petitioner Common Cause and ASG PS Narasimha, who represented the Central government..In his brief submissions, Narasimha opposed the concept of a living will stating that the same can be misused. He further informed the Court that a draft bill titled “The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill” has been drafted by the Centre. Importantly, he also submitted that passive euthanasia is the law of the land and stems out of the judgment laid down by the Supreme Court in Aruna Shanbagh case..It was also his argument that the decision, whether to remove life support or not, should be taken by a medical board after examining the condition of a patient.Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO, submitted that there is a need for safeguard measures to be adopted while deciding medical cases pertaining to euthanasia. He submitted that a proper medical board must be set up to decide on the condition of patients and to determine whether the person should be removed from life support or not. He argued that when a person reaches a stage when he can no longer express himself, the medical board must examine the condition and remove him from the life support system..Justice Misra heading the bench orally observed that there are moral issues involved while making such decision..“There is a morality issue also. If everybody is to make a living will, will it be morally and socially safe.” .“Have seen in a variety of cases relatives don’t want to take the decision due to XYZ reasons.”.Justice Misra also quizzed the role of the State in taking such a decision. Bhushan responded by stating that said the obligation of the State should come into play only if there is an absence of the legal guardians..“If there is no legal guardian then states obligation comes in. If he has then it will be the decision of the legal guardians.”.The Court also suggested that the Centre should constitute proper and functional medical boards to examine the condition of patients. Hearing will continue on Wednesday.
