| Part of a series on |
| Euthanasia |
|---|
| Types |
| Animal · Child · Voluntary Non-voluntary · Involuntary |
| Views |
| Religious (Buddhist · Catholic) |
| Groups |
| Dignitas · Dignity in Dying Exit International |
| People |
| Jack Kevorkian · Philip Nitschke |
| Books |
| Final Exit The Peaceful Pill Handbook |
| Jurisdictions |
| Australia · Canada India · Mexico Netherlands · New Zealand Switzerland · United Kingdom United States |
| Laws |
|
Oregon Death with Dignity Act Washington Death with Dignity Act |
| Court cases |
| Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) Gonzales v. Oregon (2006) Baxter v. Montana (2009) |
| Alternatives |
| Assisted suicide Palliative care Principle of double effect Terminal sedation |
| Other issues |
| Suicide tourism Groningen Protocol Euthanasia device Euthanasia and the slippery slope |
Passive euthanasia is legal in India.[1] On 7 March 2011 the Supreme Court of India legalised passive euthanasia by means of the withdrawal of life support to patients in a permanent vegetative state. The decision was made as part of the verdict in a case involving Aruna Shanbaug, who has been in a vegetative state for 37 years at King Edward Memorial Hospital. The high court rejected active euthanasia by means of lethal injection. In the absence of a law regulating euthanasia in India, the court stated that its decision becomes the law of the land until the Indian parliament enacts a suitable law.[2][3] Active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds for the purpose of ending life, is still illegal in India, and in most countries.[4]
Contents |
Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse working at the KEM Hospital in Mumbai on 27 November 1973 when she was strangled and sodomized by Sohanlal Walmiki, a sweeper. During the attack she was strangled with a chain, and the deprivation of oxygen has left her in a vegetative state ever since. She has been treated at KEM since the incident and is kept alive by feeding tube. On behalf of Aruna, her friend Pinki Virani, a social activist, filed a petition in the Supreme Court arguing that the "continued existence of Aruna is in violation of her right to live in dignity". The Supreme Court made its decision on 7 March 2011.[5] The court rejected the plea to discontinue Aruna's life support but issued a set of broad guidelines legalising passive euthanasia in India. The Supreme Court's decision to reject the discontinuation of Aruna's life support was based on the fact the hospital staff who treat and take care of her did not support euthanizing her.[2]
While rejecting Pinki Virani's plea for Aruna Shanbaug's euthanasia, the court laid out guidelines for passive euthanasia.[2] According to these guidelines, passive euthanasia involves the withdrawing of treatment or food that would allow the patient to live.[4][6] Forms of active euthanasia, including the administration of lethal compounds, are legal in a number of nations and jurisdictions, including Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as the US states of Washington and Oregon, but they are still illegal in India.[4][7]
Elsewhere in the world active euthanasia is almost always illegal.[7] The legal status of passive euthanasia, on the other hand, including the withdrawal of nutrition or water, varies across the nations of the world.[8] As India had no law about euthanasia, the Supreme Court's guidelines are law until and unless Parliament passes legislation.[4] India's Minister of Law and Justice, Veerappa Moily, called for serious political debate over the issue.[6] The following guidelines were laid down:
After the court ruling The Telegraph consulted with Muslim, Hindu, Jain and Christian religious leaders. Though generally against legalising euthanasia, Christians and the Jains thought passive euthanasia was acceptable under some circumstances. Jains and Hindus have the traditional rituals Santhara and Prayopavesa respectively, wherein one can end one's life by starvation, when one feels their life is complete.[9] Some members of India's medical establishment were skeptical about euthanasia due to the country's weak rule of law and the large gap between the rich and the poor, which might lead to the exploitation of the elderly by their families.[4]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||