Supreme Court tells Noida hospital to consider Passive Euthanasia for patient in vegetative state for 12 years

"We want the primary board to give us a report that life-sustaining treatment can be withheld. Let the primary board place its report at the earliest, and once it is before us, we shall proceed to pass further orders. Let this exercise be done within two weeks," the bench directed, news agency PTI reported.

This is the second time in as many years that parents of the patient have approached the apex court seeking passive euthanasia for their son.

On November 8 last year, the top court took note of the union health ministry report in which it was suggested that the patient will be in home care with assistance from the Uttar Pradesh government and regular visits of doctors and a physiotherapist.

The top court has said that if home care is not feasible, shifting of the boy to district hospital, Noida for ensuring availability of proper medical care considering his health condition.

On Thursday, advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, appearing for the father, said that everything was tried and they are thankful for the assistance rendered by the state government, but nothing seems to be working out.

"Today, what is happening is that he is falling ill quite often and has been taken to the hospital. What I am asking is that his case, as per this court's judgment in common cause case (2018 verdict), be referred to a primary board. If the doctors feel his treatment could be withheld, the next step would be the constitution of the secondary board and the matter will be taken before that and his treatment can be withheld," she said, reports PTI.

The counsel further said that she was not asking for active euthanasia but for passive euthanasia of the son in which this court's judgment says the life treatment can be withheld to end the suffering.

Justice Paridwala, after pursuing the reports, said, "Just look at the condition of the boy. It's pathetic." The bench directed the registry to forward the copy of the order to the hospital at Noida and to the office of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.

On August 20, last year, describing the case as a "very hard one", the top court sought the Centre's response on the plea of the parents of Rana, who was a student of Punjab University and had suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation in 2013.

He was completely bedridden and put on an artificial support system for 12 years since 2013.

It had agreed with the findings of the Delhi High Court, which had refused to constitute a medical board to consider the parents' plea that their son be allowed to undergo passive euthanasia.

The top court had said Rana was not on ventilator or other mechanical support to sustain life and rather, was being fed through a food pipe and hence, no case was made out for passive euthanasia.

The court was, however, considerate of the fact that he has been in a vegetative state for over a decade and his old parents are finding it difficult to sustain the life through treatment as they have even sold their house.

In July last year, the Delhi High Court refused to refer Rana's case to a medical board for allowing him to undergo passive euthanasia.

The high court had said the facts of the case indicate that the man is not being kept alive mechanically and he is able to sustain himself without any extra external aid.

"The petitioner is not on any life-support system and the petitioner is surviving without any external aid. While the court sympathises with the parents, as the petitioner is not terminally ill, this court cannot intervene and allow consideration of a prayer that is legally untenable," it had said.

The high court had also referred to several Supreme Court verdicts in which it was held that active euthanasia is legally impermissible.

"The petitioner is thus living and no one, including a physician, is permitted to cause the death of another person by administering any lethal drug, even if the objective is to relieve the patient from pain and suffering," it had said.

Also Read:Passive Euthanasia: SC Modifies 2018 Guidelines On Living Will, Advance Medical Directives