Aruna Shanbaug, the brain-damaged woman who has lived in a Mumbai hospital for 38 years, should continue to live, the Supreme Court of India has ruled. Since the hospital staff are effectively her “next of kin”, a request for euthanasia made on Aruna’s behalf by activist Pinki Virani was turned down.
Aruna Shanbaug, the brain-damaged woman who
has lived in a Mumbai hospital for 38 years, should continue to live,
Supreme Court of India has ruled. Since the hospital staff are
“next of kin”, a request for euthanasia made on Aruna’s behalf by
Pinki Virani was turned down.
The nurses at King Edward Memorial Hospital
had fiercely resisted an attempt by an
activist to remove Aruna’s feeding tube so that she can starve to death.
justices praised their dedication in their judgement.
country must learn the meaning of dedication and sacrifice from the KEM
hospital staff. In 38 years Aruna has not developed one bed sore,” the
said. They praised “their noble spirit and outstanding, exemplary and
unprecedented dedication in taking care of Aruna for so many long years.
Indian is proud of them.”
The Supreme Court has created an important legal
precedent, but it may have failed to clarify some important issues. At
beginning of their judgement,
Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra acknowledged that
“we feel like a ship in an
uncharted sea, seeking some guidance by the light thrown by the
and judicial pronouncements of foreign countries”.
The main outcome was two conditions for
legal “passive euthanasia”. In this they basically followed the
the UK House of Lords in the famous 1993 Anthony Bland case (Airedale
National Health Service
Trust v Bland  AC 789) which allowed doctors to
withdraw all life support from a person in a permanent vegetative state,
including nutrition and hydration.
As for the case in hand, they decided that Aruna
Shanbaug’s surrogate decision-maker was the King Edward Memorial
had adamantly supported continuing palliative care for the woman.
they dismissed a petition to withdraw Aruna’s hydration and nutrition so
would die through starvation.
In the future, they said, “life support”
can be withdrawn provided that a close relative or “next friend” or even
doctors request it. However, approval must be sought from one of India’s
High Courts to ensure that the decision is in the best interest of the
This, the justices insisted is essential. “We cannot rule out the
unscrupulous persons with the help of some unscrupulous doctors may
material to show that it is a terminal case with no chance of recovery.
are doctors and doctors. While many doctors are upright, there are
can do anything for money.”
Surprisingly, in a judgement of such
importance, the justices insisted on using the ambiguous and
“passive euthanasia”. They apparently mean withdrawal of treatment to
patient to die of the underlying cause of his or her disease. Many
would simply call this withdrawal of burdensome treatment rather than
euthanasia, in which the intention is to kill the patient. And does
support” include simple hydration and nutrition? The
Court may have
to revisit this thorny issue to settle these questions.
- How long can you put off seeing the doctor because of lockdowns? - December 3, 2021
- House of Lords debates assisted suicide—again - October 28, 2021
- Spanish government tries to restrict conscientious objection - October 28, 2021