Living Will
Present circumstances:
- The rules for “living wills,” which were created in the court’s 2018 ruling in Common Cause v. Union of India & Anr, which authorised passive euthanasia, were changed on Tuesday by the five-judge panel of the Supreme Court, which is chaired by Justice K M Joseph.
- Definitions of euthanasia and living wills should come first.
- The purposeful taking of a person’s life is known as euthanasia, which is frequently done to stop the suffering of an incurable illness or unbearable pain. Only a doctor is authorised to carry out euthanasia, which may be “active” or “passive.”
- Active euthanasia includes methods like fatal injections and other active interventions that involve using drugs or outside pressure to end a person’s life. Passive euthanasia refers to withholding treatment or life support that is required to keep a terminally ill person alive.
- Passive euthanasia was made legal by the Supreme Court of India in 2018, but only if the patient has a “living will,” which is a written document that specifies what should be done in the event that they are ever unable to make their own medical decisions.
- If a person lacks a living will, families may apply the High Court for permission to carry out passive euthanasia.
What did the SC decide in 2018?
- The Supreme Court recognised the life wishes of terminally ill patients who would go into a persistent vegetative state and created guidelines for passive euthanasia.
- According to a five-judge Constitution Bench presided over by the former Chief Justice of India (CJI), Dipak Misra, the regulations would be in place until Parliament introduced legislation on this. But because there is no law on the subject, the 2018 decision stands as the last and last set of guidelines for euthanasia.
- The regulations covered topics including who would execute the living will and how the medical board may provide its approval. The SC declared that an adult human being who has the mental capacity to make an educated choice has the right to refuse medical treatment, including withdrawal from life-saving technologies.
What situation existed before 2018?
- In a case contesting the constitutionality of Section 309 of the IPC, which mandates up to one year in jail for suicide attempt, the Supreme Court considered it to be a “cruel and unreasonable provision” that needed to be deleted from the statute book in order to “humanise our penal laws.”
- According to the court, suicide attempts have no adverse consequences on society and “cannot be judged to be against religion, morality, or public policy.” against the Indian Union, P Rathinam
- Two years later, a five-judge court panel reversed the P Rathinam decision, stating that only laws may permit euthanasia and that Article 21’s right to life did not include the right to death. (1996) Gian Kaur v. Punjab State.
- The SC authorised passive euthanasia for Aruna Shanbaug in 2011, a nurse who had been sexually assaulted in Mumbai in 1973 and has been in a vegetative condition ever since. The judge made a distinction between passive and active behaviour, allowing the latter under “limited circumstances.” Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug and Others v. Union of India
- The Law Commission of India previously stated in its 196th Report titled “Medical Treatment to Terminally Ill Patients (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners)” that “a doctor who complies with a competent patient’s request to withhold or withdraw medical treatment does not commit a professional duty and the omission to treat will not be an offence.”
- It further stated that the patient’s decision to refuse medical attention did not constitute an attempt at suicide as defined by Section 309 of the IPC.
- In its “241st Report For Passive Euthanasia: A Relook” from 2008, the Law Commission again recommended legislation on “passive euthanasia,” along with a draught Bill.
What has altered as a result of the SC order this past week?
- The petition was submitted by a nonprofit organisation that said the 2018 living will standards were “unworkable.” Though the complete judgement has not yet been made public, the Court provided a portion of its ruling in open court.
- As of 2018, a living will must be countersigned by a Judicial Magistrate of First Class and be signed by an executor (the individual requesting euthanasia) in the presence of two attesting witnesses (JMFC).
- The treating physician was also required to establish a board of three qualified medical professionals with at least 20 years of experience in each of three different but related disciplines of medicine. The living will’s execution or non-execution would be decided by this board. Once the medical board gave its permission, the will had to be forwarded to the District Collector for his approval.
- This challenging process will now be easier.
- Both medical boards will now be established by the hospital rather than the Collector and the hospital.
- Rather than 20 years of experience, doctors now just need to have five. The requirement for the Magistrate’s permission has been replaced with a communication to the Magistrate. There was no time limit specified in the prior guidelines, but the medical board must inform the public of its decision within 48 hours.
- The countersignature of the Magistrate is no longer required under the 2018 guidelines; instead, a notary or gazetted officer may sign the living will in the presence of two witnesses.
- In the event that the hospital’s established medical boards refuse authorization, the families can now apply to the High Court, which will put together a new medical team.
- Different countries have different laws.
- Euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium for people who are suffering from “unbearable agony” that is not likely to get any better.
While assisted suicide is illegal in SWITZERLAND, it is legal if a medical expert is present.
- By March 2023, Canada will legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide for those who suffer from mental illness, however the move has received harsh criticism, and the implementation date may be delayed.
- The laws in the UNITED STATES vary depending on the state. Euthanasia is legal in some states, including Washington, Oregon, and Montana.
- In the UK, it is illegal and regarded as manslaughter.
