Yesterday’s Times of India front-page report on the plight of 61-year old Shanbaug had sent droves of readers commenting on the story online.
Shanbaug was a nurse at King Edward Memorial (KEM) Hospital and has been lying in a vegetative state on the bed of the same hospital since 1973 after suffering a brutal sexual assault by a ward boy.
Activist and author Pinki Virani had moved the petition as Shanbaug’s “next friend” and urged the court to direct hospital authorities to stop feeding her paralysed body.
Despite viewing it akin to mercy killing, the Supreme Court of India has now relented in favour of the argument presented by the petitioners counsel Shekhar Naphade who said: “Is not keeping the woman in this persistent vegetative state by force feeding violative of her right to live with dignity guaranteed by Article 21 (Right to life) of the Constitution?”
Naphade also highlighted her inhumane and torturous existence in the KEM Hospital and requested the authorities and court to step in and lay guidelines, as her condition is pronounced beyond cure by the doctors.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court bench consisting of Chief Justice of India, K G Balakrishnan, Justices A K Ganguly and B S Chauhan has agreed to examine the issue by seeking response from the center and state Governments, the dean of KEM hospital and the Commissioner of Mumbai Police.
The Supreme Court until now maintains a pro-life stance and had earlier declined pleas of termination of pregnancy of a mentally disabled girl resulting from a rape at a Nari Niketan in Chandigarh as well as a similar plea of a Mumbai couple for termination of a diseased foetus, reported the Times of India.
Comments
Barbara
Lawyer Marketing
How are the above two comments relevant here? i am still wondering...
the issue at hand is the 'right to die with dignity' and this case deservedly falls in the category that must qualify. let's wait and see how the hon'ble SCI deals with the same.
Anand
1 The issues raised in Aruna's case are highly complex for which there are not any straightforward answers .
2 I say this because apart from the legal or moral issues there are number of other points which needs to be considered .
3 Howeve, as my Learned friends and their lordships of the Supreme court will observe the first and the foremost point to be considers is about the paramount interest of the patient .
4 One would have thought that if the panel of medical experts are of the opinion that the long term prognosis is virtually nil then in consltation with the next friend and or guardian ad liem or the nearest family members ,one can argue that artificially prolonging the life expetancy of the patient is contrary to the patients interest which increases her pain and suffering
5 With due respect to all my learned friends it is my humble view that euthanasia or the termination of the pregancy of the mental patient are somewhat different issues
6 As I see it in the instant case their lordship should please be invited to consider A. Whether the patient has a right to bring an end to his/her life when the medical condition is such that there are not any prospects of improvement
B Whether it is in the best interest of the patient to keep him/her alive unless such an action is likely to improve the quality of her life in any way
c Whether patient is capable of giving valid consent after considering all medical advice to bring an end to her life by refusing treatment or food or drink
7 Whether by permitting the medical experts to discontinue the treatment of the patient will in any way affect the legal or any other interest of those who may be involved in keeping the patient alive .
8 It is of utmost importance that such cases are to be considered and determined on its own merits rather than any narrow issues to be emotionally highlighted by any NGO or any other body .
9 Once such issues are considered and clarified then with the benefit of the wisdom of the judiciary perhaps the existing law could be suitably reviewed and revised to encompass such tragic cases
10 May be my humble views need correction for which I am open but the facts remain that the time has come when one needs to look beyond the latter and the sprit of Acts , Rules and Regulations .
Kindest Regards and the Seasons Greetings
Bhupendra K VYAS
Senior Solicitor
Singhania and co
London
PS The views expressed herein are of the writer and not of his firm or any one else
My vote is firmly in favour of Pinki Virani on this one.
Please donot stretch the argument to Right to live with dignity that it becomes anti-thesis to main provision.
21 says no one to be deprived of life except in accordance with the procedure established by law. if right to die is included we would violate the words of the constitution which have been guiding and protecting this democracy for more than 50 years now.