Posts
Hindustan Times
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition for the mercy killing of Aruna Shanbaug, who has been in a "persistent vegetative state" for the past 37 years after being sodomised by a hospital sweeper but permitted passive euthanasia subject to a declaration by a high court to this effect.
An apex court bench of justice Markandey Katju and justice Gyan Sudha Misra delivered the ruling while rejecting a petition moved on Shanbaug's behalf by her friend and social activist Pinki Virani. Justice Katju said that active euthanasia is illegal as there is no statutory provision to support it.
However, the court said: "Passive euthanasia is permissible under certain conditions with the approval of the high court."
It further said the high court will grant its approval after getting the opinion of three eminent doctors and hearing the government and the close relatives of the terminally ill patient sought to be put under passive euthanasia.
The court said though Virani is performing a laudable social service, the staff, doctors and nurses of Mumbai's King Edward Memorial Hospital, where Shanbaug is admitted have a greater right over her and only they can decide whether to opt for passive euthanasia or not.
"She (Virani) cannot claim to be as close and attached to Aruna Shanbaug as King Edward Memorial Hospital staff and nurses," the bench ruled.
Active euthanasia is a state where a patient is given a lethal injection to bring him to sleep, while passive euthanasia involves withdrawing the life support system from a patient.
Aruna, who is now nearly 60-years-old, slipped into coma after a brutal attack on her at Mumbai's King Edward Memorial Hospital by a staffer on November 27, 1973.
According to the petition files by Virani, he had tried to rape the victim but finding that she was menstruating, indulged in anal sex.
To immobilise her during this act, he twisted the chain around her neck and fled the scene after the committing the heinous offence, it had said.
Virani had said that due to strangulation by the chain, the supply of oxygen to her brain stopped and the cortex got damaged. She also had brain stem contusion injury associated with cervical cord injury.
According to the petitioner, in the last 37 years after the incident, Aruna has become "featherweight" and her bones are brittle. She is prone to bed sores.
Her wrists are twisted inward, teeth decayed and she can only be given mashed food on which she survives, Virani had said, adding that Aruna is in a persistent vegetative state, her brain is virtually dead and she is oblivious to the outside world.
She can neither see nor hear anything nor can she express herself or communicate in any manner, whatsoever, she had said in her plea for mercy killing.
The bench had reserved its verdict on the plea for subjecting Aruna to mercy killing after hearing detailed arguments by various parties on the question of allowing euthanasia.
Several counsel who made submissions on the controversial issue for permitting mercy killing included Attorney General G E Vahanvati, amicus curiae T R Andhyarujina, Ballabh Sisodia for the hospital and Shekhar Naphade appearing for the petitioner and Virani.
During the arguments, the government had taken the stand that there is no provision either under the statute or the Constitution to permit euthanasia.
Sisodia had opposed the plea contending that the hospital staff, particularly the nurses and the doctors, have been taking "dedicated care" of Aruna for the past 37 years and they were opposed to the plea for her killing.
Reacting to the SC verdict, Amrita Nandy, a member of the women’s NGO, Sangat said, “it had to be rejected. What I know of Aruna Shanbaug case it doesn’t fit to fall into the regular mercy killing scenario. I heard she responds to sites, smell touch etc., so her case can’t be used to set a benchmark for euthanasia. It actually varies from cases to case, but euthanasia is an entirely subjective issue. I believe it should be the sole decision of people close to the person such as family, relatives etc. However, I don’t think India is really ready for something like this at the moment, as Indians are extremely emotional by nature. I personally feel, in some cases it should be okay, because such existence isn’t very dignified.But then it’s a very difficult opinion to have.”
Echoing the sentiment, Geetha Bhardwaj, member of a Delhi-based NGO said,“I do not see why she did not have a right to live. I would have still understood the argument if she herself had expressed a choice to not live, but in her case there is no scope for any argument.There is no way we can know her desire, and it is not as if she is not being taken care of. There are such wonderful people around he who have so lovingly taken care of her for 37 years.Why must someone else decide for her.”
“I support physician assisted suicide, where a terminally ill patient in deep pain wants to end life and approaches court for permission. But in Shanbaug’s cases, I doubt whether any court has the right to decide that she should not live. It’s a different case where some one else has filed a petition saying she should be allowed to die. I am against it,even if we assume the person acted in good faith,” Colin Gonsalves, founder,Human Rights Law Network added.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition for the mercy killing of Aruna Shanbaug, who has been in a "persistent vegetative state" for the past 37 years after being sodomised by a hospital sweeper but permitted passive euthanasia subject to a declaration by a high court to this effect.
An apex court bench of justice Markandey Katju and justice Gyan Sudha Misra delivered the ruling while rejecting a petition moved on Shanbaug's behalf by her friend and social activist Pinki Virani. Justice Katju said that active euthanasia is illegal as there is no statutory provision to support it.
However, the court said: "Passive euthanasia is permissible under certain conditions with the approval of the high court."
It further said the high court will grant its approval after getting the opinion of three eminent doctors and hearing the government and the close relatives of the terminally ill patient sought to be put under passive euthanasia.
The court said though Virani is performing a laudable social service, the staff, doctors and nurses of Mumbai's King Edward Memorial Hospital, where Shanbaug is admitted have a greater right over her and only they can decide whether to opt for passive euthanasia or not.
"She (Virani) cannot claim to be as close and attached to Aruna Shanbaug as King Edward Memorial Hospital staff and nurses," the bench ruled.
Active euthanasia is a state where a patient is given a lethal injection to bring him to sleep, while passive euthanasia involves withdrawing the life support system from a patient.
Aruna, who is now nearly 60-years-old, slipped into coma after a brutal attack on her at Mumbai's King Edward Memorial Hospital by a staffer on November 27, 1973.
According to the petition files by Virani, he had tried to rape the victim but finding that she was menstruating, indulged in anal sex.
To immobilise her during this act, he twisted the chain around her neck and fled the scene after the committing the heinous offence, it had said.
Virani had said that due to strangulation by the chain, the supply of oxygen to her brain stopped and the cortex got damaged. She also had brain stem contusion injury associated with cervical cord injury.
According to the petitioner, in the last 37 years after the incident, Aruna has become "featherweight" and her bones are brittle. She is prone to bed sores.
Her wrists are twisted inward, teeth decayed and she can only be given mashed food on which she survives, Virani had said, adding that Aruna is in a persistent vegetative state, her brain is virtually dead and she is oblivious to the outside world.
She can neither see nor hear anything nor can she express herself or communicate in any manner, whatsoever, she had said in her plea for mercy killing.
The bench had reserved its verdict on the plea for subjecting Aruna to mercy killing after hearing detailed arguments by various parties on the question of allowing euthanasia.
Several counsel who made submissions on the controversial issue for permitting mercy killing included Attorney General G E Vahanvati, amicus curiae T R Andhyarujina, Ballabh Sisodia for the hospital and Shekhar Naphade appearing for the petitioner and Virani.
During the arguments, the government had taken the stand that there is no provision either under the statute or the Constitution to permit euthanasia.
Sisodia had opposed the plea contending that the hospital staff, particularly the nurses and the doctors, have been taking "dedicated care" of Aruna for the past 37 years and they were opposed to the plea for her killing.
Reacting to the SC verdict, Amrita Nandy, a member of the women’s NGO, Sangat said, “it had to be rejected. What I know of Aruna Shanbaug case it doesn’t fit to fall into the regular mercy killing scenario. I heard she responds to sites, smell touch etc., so her case can’t be used to set a benchmark for euthanasia. It actually varies from cases to case, but euthanasia is an entirely subjective issue. I believe it should be the sole decision of people close to the person such as family, relatives etc. However, I don’t think India is really ready for something like this at the moment, as Indians are extremely emotional by nature. I personally feel, in some cases it should be okay, because such existence isn’t very dignified.But then it’s a very difficult opinion to have.”
Echoing the sentiment, Geetha Bhardwaj, member of a Delhi-based NGO said,“I do not see why she did not have a right to live. I would have still understood the argument if she herself had expressed a choice to not live, but in her case there is no scope for any argument.There is no way we can know her desire, and it is not as if she is not being taken care of. There are such wonderful people around he who have so lovingly taken care of her for 37 years.Why must someone else decide for her.”
“I support physician assisted suicide, where a terminally ill patient in deep pain wants to end life and approaches court for permission. But in Shanbaug’s cases, I doubt whether any court has the right to decide that she should not live. It’s a different case where some one else has filed a petition saying she should be allowed to die. I am against it,even if we assume the person acted in good faith,” Colin Gonsalves, founder,Human Rights Law Network added.
No comments:
Post a Comment