Context:
The Supreme Court permitted withdrawal of life support for a patient in Persistent Vegetative State (PVS), reinforcing the right to die with dignity under Article 21.
Key Highlights:
Case Background:
• Harish Rana remained in PVS for 13 years after severe injuries
• SC allowed withdrawal of life support including CANH (Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration)
Judicial Evolution:
• Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011): Recognized passive euthanasia
• Common Cause Case (2018): Legalized withdrawal/withholding treatment under Article 21
• Gian Kaur Case (1996): Recognized right to live with dignity, but not explicit right to die
Legal & Ethical Interpretation:
• CANH considered medical treatment, hence can be withdrawn
• Decision based on “best interest of the patient”
• Strong procedural safeguards:
- Primary and Secondary Medical Boards approval required
Relevant Prelims Points:
• Article 21: Right to life includes dignity
• Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment
• PVS: State of no awareness despite basic physiological functions
• Living Will: Legal document specifying end-of-life care preferences (recognized in Common Cause case)
Relevant Mains Points:
• Ethical Dimensions:
- Balancing sanctity of life vs dignity in death
- Avoidance of prolonged suffering and futile medical intervention
- Legal Safeguards:
- Prevent misuse through multi-layered medical and judicial oversight
- Uphold patient autonomy and informed consent
- Challenges:
- Lack of awareness about living wills
- Ethical dilemmas among doctors and families
- Potential misuse in vulnerable populations
- Way Forward:
- Clear legislative framework on euthanasia
- Public awareness on advance directives/living wills
- Strengthening ethical medical practices and palliative care systems
UPSC Relevance:
• GS 2: Polity (Fundamental Rights), Judiciary
• Ethics: End-of-life care, dignity, autonomy