Describing the case as a “very hard one”, the Supreme Court sought the Centre’s response on Tuesday on a plea of a couple whose 30-year-old son has been lying in a vegetative state in a hospital since 2013 after suffering head injuries.
The court said instead of allowing passive euthanasia, which is not permissible in the case, it will explore the possibility of shifting the patient to a government hospital or a similar place for treatment and care.
It 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.
Passive euthanasia is the intentional act of letting a patient die by withholding or withdrawing life support or treatment necessary for maintaining life.
A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said the patient, Harish Rana, is not on a 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 considerate of the fact that the man has been in a vegetative state for 11 years after he suffered a fall from the fourth floor of a building and his old parents are finding it difficult to sustain the life through treatment as they have even sold their house.
The bench was of the view that the parents’ plea that a medical board be set up to consider passive euthanasia for Rana was rightly rejected by the high court as no medical professional will cause death by injecting some substance into a patient who is alive without any mechanical or ventilator support.
“The high court held that passive euthanasia is not permissible as per the Common Cause judgment (of the top court) and that the person was not kept alive mechanically and was alive without external life support. We are in support with the view of the high court and the case does not fall under the ambit of passive euthanasia since there is no external life support,” the bench said.
“At the same time, the court is mindful that the parents are now aged and cannot care for their son who is bedridden for so many years and if any humanitarian solution can be found other than passive euthanasia. Thus, we issue notice to the Centre and request Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati to assist us. We will see if he can be placed somewhere else. This is a very hard case,” the bench said.
Later, the bench asked Bhati, who was appearing in the court in another case, if there was any possibility to lodge Rana at a hospital where he could be taken care of.
“I will look into it. I will take the details and assist the court,” the law officer said.
In July, the 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.
According to the petition, the petitioner, who is about 30 years old, was a student of the Punjab University and had suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation in 2013.
The plea says the petitioner’s family has done its best to treat him. However, he has been confined to bed since 2013 due to diffuse axonal injury with permanent vegetative state and 100-per cent disability.
The plea says his family has consulted various doctors, has been informed that there is no scope for his recovery and the petitioner, who has not responded for the last 11 years, has developed deep and large bedsores that have caused further infection.
It says the petitioner’s family has lost all hope for his recovery and his parents are not in a position to take care of him as they are getting old.
