Right To Refuse Treatment Vis-À-Vis Passive Euthanasia: Judicial Approach

Abstract

The landmark judgment in Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug2 modified indefinitely India’s controversial approach to euthanasia by authorizing perpetual life support, a method of passive euthanasia, life support system withdrawal only for patients in a permanent vegetative state (PVS). Passive euthanasia will or can “only be allowed in cases where the person is in a persistent vegetative state or terminally ill”3 , according to the verdict. Under certain circumstances and conditions, the act of withdrawing or removing life-support medical treatment from a terminally ill or permanent vegetative patient state may be allowed. Another noteworthy court ruling followed after seven years of the Aruna Shanbaug case on 9th March, 2018 through Common Cause (a reg. society) v. Union of India4 where the Supreme Court of India constituted with five judges has ruled that having the right to die with dignity is a fundamental and basic right. In seeking the solution or a way out, the issues which grappled the Hon’ble Court in Common Cause were: Is it unconstitutional for a person to refuse medical care, or is it illegal for them to refuse a certain sort of medical treatment? If this happens, can the individuals concerned make their own decisions about what steps can be taken in the future if they lose control of their faculties? To the question of whether an individual has a right and so imposes a duty on a medical professional who treats the individual, the answer is that this does lay an obligation on the doctor. To what extent, if any, does this obligation need qualifications is the next issue; Additionally, whether it is permissible for a medical practitioner to withhold or refuse medical treatment towards the end of an individual’s life who has lost control of his or her faculties and this desire was expressed when he or she was able to make an informed decision and was able to think clearly. That individual’s capacity to make an informed decision in a clear mind would likely allow them to make decision and decline medical treatment if there is no reasonable hope for recovery. The Bench went even further and found that the practice of passive euthanasia and advance medical directives are likewise legally acceptable. Also, there should be less unpleasantness in the process of dying for patients who are terminally sick or for patients who are in a vegetative state, because those individuals should be able to have an undisturbed, peaceful passing.