Written By: Nirmalya Dutta | Updated : August 14, 2013 10:31 AM IST
The government of India is against bringing any laws on mercy killings, Union Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad said on Tuesday. 'The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is not in favour of enacting the Bill [on mercy killing]. There is no proposal under consideration at this stage for making law on this subject,' Azad told the Rajya Sabha. The view of the Ministry has been conveyed to the Ministry of Law & Justice.
The Minister also pointed out that euthanasia was in direct conflict with the Hippocratic Oath that all doctors take. While he acknowledged that individuals suffering from incurable diseases might wish to end their lives but their wish would only be a fleeting desire. It might also put psychological pressure on medical officers who would be required to conduct withdrawal of life support.
There might be psychological pressure and trauma to the medical officers who would be required to conduct withdrawal of life support. The Supreme Court has already issued guidelines in this respect in the Aruna Shanbaug case that are to be treated as law. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaugh was a nurse who had been strangled and sexually assaulted by a sweeper at KEM Hospital in 1973. The strangulation deprived her brain of oxygen and she was in a vegetative state since then. Her friend PInky Virani had plead that she be put 'out of her misery' but the SC turned down her plea deciding Ms Virani didn't have the locus standi (the right of a party to appear before court) and the hospital would have to appeal to remove her from life support.
The SC bench however had led down some guidelines for discounting life-support. Writing the judgement, Justice Katju had said: 'There is no statutory provision in our country as to the legal procedure for withdrawing life support to a person in PVS or who is otherwise incompetent to take a decision. We agree with [senior counsel] Mr. T.R. Andhyarujina that passive euthanasia should be permitted in our country in certain situations, and we disagree with the learned Attorney General [G.E. Vahanvati] that it should never be permitted.'
'We are laying down the law in this connection which will continue to be the law until Parliament makes a law on the subject. A decision has to be taken to discontinue life support [to a patient in PVS] either by the parents or the spouse or other close relatives, or in the absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attending the patient. However, the decision should be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient.'
The Bench added: 'If we leave it solely to the patient's relatives or to the doctors or the next friend to decide whether to withdraw life support to an incompetent person, there is always a risk in our country that this may be misused by some unscrupulous persons who wish to inherit or otherwise grab the property of the patient. Considering the low ethical levels prevailing in our society today and the rampant commercialisation and corruption, we cannot rule out the possibility that unscrupulous persons with the help of some unscrupulous doctors may fabricate material to show that it is a terminal case with no chance of recovery.'
