Court weighs delicate decision on withdrawing life support treatment
- Verdict Reserved: Supreme Court to decide on passive euthanasia plea for Harish Rana.
- Decade of Trauma: Victim has been in a vegetative state for 13 years after a 2013 balcony fall.
- Dignified Death: Parents and Centre support withdrawing life support to end suffering.
- Legal Stand: Bench calls the issue "delicate" but acknowledges negligible chance of recovery.
Deciding between a life of suffering and a dignified death is never simple. This delicate balance was at the center of proceedings in the Supreme Court on Thursday, as a bench reserved its order on a petition seeking passive euthanasia for Harish Rana. The 32-year-old Delhi resident has been in a vegetative state for over a decade, prompting his parents to approach the apex court for relief from his prolonged agony.
Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, who preside over the bench, met with Harish's parents prior to the hearing. Acknowledging the gravity of the situation, the judges remarked on the difficulty of such choices, stating, "Who are we to decide who lives or dies? We will consider withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment."
A Decade of Suffering
Harish’s tragic ordeal began on August 20, 2013. While studying in Chandigarh, he fell from the fourth-floor balcony of his paying guest accommodation. The fall caused severe head injuries, leaving him with 100% disability. Since that fateful day, Harish has remained in a permanent vegetative state, kept alive only through tubes that provide breathing assistance and nutrition.
For 13 years, his parents have cared for him, but the emotional and physical toll has been immense. They have now sought permission for passive euthanasia, arguing that their son deserves a dignified end rather than a continued existence in a comatose state.
Legal Arguments for Dignity
During the hearing, the amicus curiae representing the parents advocated strongly for the withdrawal of life support. Citing reports from two separate medical boards, the advocate highlighted that Harish has a negligible chance of recovery. The plea emphasized that continuing artificial treatment violates the fundamental right to live with dignity.
Explaining the proposed process, the counsel detailed that Harish would be moved to palliative care. Here, feeding tubes would be removed, and sedatives would be administered to ensure he feels no pain, allowing for a peaceful natural death.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, supported the plea. She noted that Harish has been reduced to "skin and bones" and that his condition is irreversible. The ASG urged the court to consider the immense hardships faced by caregivers in such cases, noting that this ruling could set a precedent for implementing the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in 2018.
Understanding Passive Euthanasia
While active euthanasia remains illegal in India, passive euthanasia - withdrawing life support from terminally ill patients - was legally recognized by the Supreme Court in the landmark Aruna Shanbaug case. The 2018 ruling further solidified the legal framework, allowing individuals to draft "living wills" to refuse medical treatment in terminal situations.
The court has now reserved its judgment, a decision that will likely have significant implications for the interpretation of the right to die with dignity in India.
