The Supreme Court has directed Noida district hospital to form a medical board to assess whether life support for a 31-year-old quadriplegic man can be legally withdrawn. The case follows his father’s plea citing continuous suffering and worsening health over the past 12 years.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Noida district hospital to form a primary medical board to examine the request for passive euthanasia of a 31-year-old man who has 100 per cent disability due to quadriplegia and has remained in a vegetative state for more than ten years.
The court observed that his health condition has continued to deteriorate and needs urgent medical assessment under the legal process.
Passive euthanasia means allowing a person to die by stopping or not starting treatment or life support systems that keep them alive. It does not involve giving any lethal injection or medicine.
A bench consisting of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan instructed the district hospital located in Sector 39, Noida, to submit its report within two weeks.
This direction came after an application was filed by the father of Harish Rana, who requested the court to allow passive euthanasia for his son due to his continuously worsening condition.
The Supreme Court clearly instructed the medical board and stated,
“We want the primary board to give us a report that life-sustaining treatment can be withheld. Let the primary board place its report at the earliest, and once it is before us, we shall proceed to pass further orders. Let this exercise be done within two weeks,”
This is the second time in two years that the parents have approached the Supreme Court with the same request for passive euthanasia of their son.
Earlier, on November 8 last year, the Supreme Court considered a report from the Union Health Ministry, which suggested that Harish Rana should continue to remain in home care with assistance from the Uttar Pradesh government along with regular visits from doctors and a physiotherapist.
The court had also stated that if home care was not possible, he should be shifted to the Noida district hospital so that proper medical facilities could be ensured.
During the hearing, advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, representing the father, informed the court that despite all efforts made by the family and support by the state government, the patient’s condition is not improving.
She said,
“Today, what is happening is that he is falling ill quite often and has been taken to the hospital. What I am asking is that his case, as per this court’s judgment in common cause case (2018 verdict), be referred to a primary board. If the doctors feel his treatment could be withheld, the next step would be the constitution of the secondary board and the matter will be taken before that and his treatment can be withheld,”
She further clarified that the family is not demanding active euthanasia and added,
“The counsel further said that she was not asking for active euthanasia but for passive euthanasia of the son in which this court’s judgement says the life treatment can be withheld to end the suffering.”
After reviewing the reports and medical history, Justice Pardiwala expressed deep concern and commented,
“Just look at the condition of the boy. It’s pathetic.”
The bench also directed that a copy of its order be immediately sent to the Noida district hospital and to the office of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati for compliance and monitoring.
The case history shows that on August 20 last year, the Supreme Court had called the matter “very hard” and sought the Centre’s response on the parents’ plea.
Harish Rana, who was a student of Punjab University, suffered serious head injuries in 2013 after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation. Since then, he has remained fully bedridden and dependent on artificial medical support for over 12 years.
Previously, the Supreme Court had agreed with the Delhi High Court, which refused to form a medical board for considering passive euthanasia.
The reason given was that Rana was not on a ventilator or mechanical life-support system and was being fed through a food pipe, therefore not qualifying for passive euthanasia as per legal standards.
However, the court showed sympathy for the parents, noting that the patient had been in a constant vegetative state for over a decade and that the family had even sold their house to manage his medical expenses.
In July last year, the Delhi High Court rejected the parents’ plea, stating that Rana was not being kept alive by machines and was capable of basic survival without mechanical assistance.
The High Court noted,
“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 also cited several Supreme Court judgments highlighting that active euthanasia is not legally permitted in India.
The court firmly stated,
“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,”
The case now awaits the report of the primary medical board, after which the Supreme Court will decide whether life-sustaining treatment can be lawfully withdrawn under the framework laid down in the Common Cause judgment of 2018.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Euthanasia
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
