The Centre objected to the exercise. Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said: "The government doesn't accept euthanasia as a principle. Our stand on euthanasia, in whichever form, is that the court has no jurisdiction to decide this. It's for Parliament and the legislature to take a call after a thorough debate and taking into account multifarious views."
READ ALSO: Swiss jab for last right at Rs 7 lakh
The court agreed it was a matter of public policy and that Parliament and the legislature were competent to decide it. But counsel Prashant Bhushan, for PIL petitioner NGO Common Cause, said the issues were debated in public for decades and the legislature had not yet taken the first step.
The court wanted a country-wide debate. A constitution bench of Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justices J S Khehar, J Chelameswar, A K Sikri and R F Nariman sought views of all states and Union territories on the PIL in eight weeks. It requested senior advocate T R Andhyarujina to assist the court as amicus curiae.
The issue concerns the rights of a terminally-ill person, after doctors unanimously rule out chances of survival. Active euthanasia would involve a doctor injecting a lethal medicine to trigger cardiac arrest. In passive euthanasia, doctors, with consent from relatives, withdraw the life support system of a person being kept alive with the help of machines.
Explaining "living will", Bhushan said, "Given the unanimity that a person had the right to refuse a particular medicine or treatment, why should he/she be not allowed to execute a will in sound mind saying if he/she ever slipped into a vegetative state with a terminal disease with no chance of recovery, doctors shouldn't keep him/her alive with the help of life support?
READ ALSO: When Bapu backed mercy killing
"The constitution bench should consider active euthanasia that provides an option to the terminally ill... to choose the option of right to die. If, after all medical interventions fail and the process of death has commenced, why should the patient not have a right to die," he asked.
The A-G raised fundamental doubts: "What is dignified death? Who decides when the process of death commences? What if medical research tomorrow finds a cure to the presently terminally-ill (sic) disease? Can the court fathom the problems and abuse that could happen in far-flung places?"
He added, "Attempt to suicide is an offence under Section 309 of IPC. Abetment to suicide too is an offence (Section 306). Euthanasia in any form would fall within the meaning of abetment to suicide. Would 'living will' not fall under expression of an intention to commit suicide? It is a difficult issue to find a solution through a straight-jacket formula."
READ ALSO: In Oregon, 1,173 opted for lethal medication
The court admitted it was a complex issue. The bench also agreed with the AG and solicitor general Ranjit Kumar that Parliament and legislature probably would be able to debate the issue threadbare. But it said the exercise was to find out whether there was any legal framework that could be put in place.
http://ift.tt/1kuDWdc Court,right to die,passive euthanasia,euthanasia,debate on euthanasia
0 comments:
Post a Comment