In a decision passed on Friday, the top court gave legal sanction to
passive euthanasia or withholding treatment essential to life for a terminally-ill patient.
It is due to this difference that most of the countries across the world have legalised
passive euthanasia either by legislation or by judicial interpretation with certain conditions and safeguards.
While
passive euthanasia entails withholding of common treatments in terminally ill patients such as antibiotics, necessary for the continuance of life, active euthanasia involves the use of lethal substances or forces, such as injections to kill, and is the most controversial.
In fact McQuoid-Mason [1] defines
passive euthanasia as 'aiming at preventing the prolonging of death by allowing an irreversible fatal underlying illness to kill the patient through withholding or withdrawing treatment', implying thereby that the disease and not the actions of the doctor causes death.
While anything that shortens life is unacceptable, the Jewish faith does not mandate extending life through artificial means (Richards & Bergin, 2000), and opting out for a more natural dying process by means of
passive euthanasia is allowed.
Despite the traditional notion that a physician only practices medicine for the purpose of healing, the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged a constitutionally protected interest in
passive euthanasia and abortion, two procedures that arguably work against the promotion of life and health.
Actual directions in the world are in favor of
passive euthanasia (renouncement to therapeutic insistences), Resolutions of European Council (11) proclaim the right to die in a dignified manner, relaxed and if possibly in comfort, in compliance with the patient's biological will (12).
Sometimes, this distinction is expressed as killing and letting die or as active and
passive euthanasia.
Recently, India joined a select group of countries worldwide such as Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland and the states of Oregon and Washington in the United States in legalizing the administration of
passive euthanasia.
The Court while discussing the issue of mercy killing generally in this case allowed
passive euthanasia in select cases.
The Supreme Court gave a sanction to
passive euthanasia if the high court concerned approves it.
Refusing mercy killing of Aruna Shanbaug, , lying in a vegetative state for 37 years in a Mumbai hospital, a two-judge bench of justices Markandeya Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra, laid a set of tough guidelines under which
passive euthanasia can be legalised through high court monitored mechanism.
