Delhi High Court Refuses to put man’s euthanasia in vegetative state for 10 years
In the case of Harish Rana V Union of India , a plea has been filled by a 30 year old Harish Rana who was studying at the Punjab University and unfortunately suffered head injuries after falling from the 4th Floor of his paying guest house. He has developed large bed sores along with infection. He has not moved since last 11 years and has been bed ridden since 2013. His parents told the court that they have lost all hope of his recovery and are getting old themselves so they cannot take care of their son.
The Delhi High Court refused to pass orders to examine euthanising a man who has been in a vegetative state for last 11 years. On July 2 Justice Subramonium Prasad rejected the plea filled by the petitioner after stating that he can be kept alive without any extra medical relief.
Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of a patient to limit the patient’s suffering. The patient in question would typically be terminally ill or experiencing great pain and suffering.
There are mainly 2 types of Euthanasia, Active euthanasia means killing a patient by active means, for example, injecting a patient with a lethal dose of a drug. Sometimes called “aggressive” euthanasia. Passive euthanasia means intentionally letting a patient die by withholding artificial life support such as a ventilator or feeding tube.
In the Indian Context Passive Euthanasia possess the legal sanctity due to the judgement of the case of Common Cause V Union of India.
Individual dignity having been recognized as falling under Article 21 by the Puttuswamy decision, the Court construed the right to live with human dignity as implying a right to live a dignified life until death. The Court considers this to encompass a dignified death method.
Justice Prasad referred to the judgement of Common Cause case and stated as per Supreme Court , Active euthanasia or mercy killing by any external drug is legally impermissible in India. The petitioner is not on any life support and is surviving without any external aid or support. The court sympathises but cannot allow a request that is legally untenable.
Therefore the writ petition was dismissed by the court as he cannot allow the Medical Board to examine the petitioner as to whether he can be allowed to undergo passive euthanasia.
