Supreme Court reserves verdict on plea for mercy killing
At the conclusion of arguments, the Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved verdict on whether Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug, lying in a vegetative state in a Mumbai hospital bed for 37 years, could be subjected to passive mercy killing by stopping food, even as the hospital made it clear that it would keep her alive till the natural end.
Earlier a team of doctors — J.V. Divatia, Roop Gurshani and Nilesh Shah appointed by the court to examine the patient's condition made a presentation and submitted reports on her condition.
Quoting judgments from foreign countries, senior counsel Shekhar Naphade, appearing for Aruna's friend Pinki Virani of Mumbai, said the paramount consideration were the best interests of the patient. The Law Commission had also recommended that patients who were terminally ill and in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) should be permitted to die by withdrawing the life support system. Aruna was in a PVS and her existence could not be considered a human life.
Attorney-General G.E. Vahanvati said Aruna had the right to live in her present state. Her condition would not justify termination of her life by withdrawing hydration/food/medical support, and doing so would be contrary to law, cruel, inhuman and intolerable. If food was withdrawn, the efforts put in by the hospital all these years would be undermined.
What was applicable to the western world would not be relevant to “our country where emotions and culture played a major part and we have strong social values.” Mercy killing would result in a dangerous situation as it would be easy to eliminate others if such a thing was allowed in the country, said the AG. Justice Markandey Katju observed: “We are also concerned that once this is allowed, there will be too many such requests from relatives. There is a possibility that relatives in collusion with some doctors may bump off the patient claiming he/she is in a PVS though he/she may not be really so.”
Senior counsel for the KEM Hospital Pallav Sisodia said that not once these long years did anybody in the hospital think of putting an end to Aruna's so-called vegetative existence. The patient “cannot distinguish between man and woman, nor can she even distinguish between an ordinate and inordinate object. Till September last, she was given mashed food through mouth. But thereafter she has been fed through a nasogastric tube.”
Counsel argued that relatives did not take care of Aruna, and as only the hospital had an interest in her, it alone could decide whether or not to stop food. The hospital would not allow stopping of food. She had crossed 60 years and would one day meet her natural end, but the doctors, nurses and other staff of the KEM Hospital were determined to take care of her till then. The court should not embark on an academic exercise when the hospital was not interested in stopping food or medicines. Amicus curiae and senior counsel T.R. Andhyarujina said the decision to withdraw the life support was taken in the best interests of the patient. In this case stopping food might not be illegal or unlawful as it would be in the best interests of Aruna.
Justice Gyan Sudha Misra was on the Bench along with Justice Katju.
Keywords: Aruna Ramachandra Shanbau, mercy killing, KEM Hospital
As some of the comments above have said, one has to think of the enormous suffering the poor soul is undergoing and of course her family members, unable to openly ask for her euthanasia, for being within socially accepted norms. Any languishing poor soul in any family, is a trauma not only to the individual alone but also to all those who love them as well. In cases where God seems to delay the onset of death (of ailing souls), the righteous things is to give the opportunity to escape from this suffering. If there is even the slightest chance that she may come back to normalcy then it makes sense to continue with this. But if there is no such chance, subjecting her to undergo such a pain after having done so for 37 years is atrocious. Can she be a source of joy to anyone ? Will anyone repent if she dies (even the most loved dear ones would thank that the suffering she had to undergo has stopped)? Is there any joy left for her? When answers to all these questions are in the negative, it would have been appropriate to dedicate an appropriate solution in this matter on a special case basis. By subjecting her to euthanasia, are we in any way denying her of a chance that she could otherwise live to enjoy/act/experience/feel? That being the case the law makers need to put themselves in the shoes of the victim or perhaps think one of their own family members as being in that place and take a decision - this has to be purely on humane grounds and not on the basis of what the law has laid out.One only hopes the family muster the courage to ask for the same and helps the poor soul find rest.
Supreme Court did not take into account the quality of life and the dignity of life associated with life. The mental and physical anguish of the terminally ill patients and their relatives has not been considered by the Court. It may sound morbid but seeing the pictures of Ms Shanbaug makes one feel that death will be a relief for her. The court has wasted an opportunity to rise above the religious and social taboos by not showing a direction in mercy relief from painful vegetative life.
Hearty Congratulations to KEM Hospital entire staff. This gives perfect confidence to medical fraternity so aso take risk against mercy killings. This is a historical judgement in favour of Medical fraternity.
It gives such a powerful positive feeling to hear about the commitment and selfless act of doctors and nurses of KEM Hospital.
You make the world beautiful and faith in humanity intact.
No doubt indeed about the efforts put in by KEM Hospital, Mumbai. However, how can a panel of Doctors appointed by Supreme Court judge someone's mental condition of someone like Ms. Aruna. Supreme Court has denied the appeal only because it might bring a revolution, a change in India as there would be more cases for Mercy Killing. According to Indian Law, a person is termed Dead if he/she is gone missing for 7 yrs but what about some one like Ms. Aruna who's bed-ridden ever since the day when this unfortunate event took place in her life and is abandoned by everyone except the Members of the KEM Hospital, Mumbai. Shouldn't Indian Law be ammended or made exceptions?
KEM Hospital,Mumbai has to be congratulated for the tireless efforts put on by the hospital staff to maintain alive Ms.Aruna todate.The observation made by the judiciary about the "relations in collution with some doctors......may not be really so" is offensive to both relatives and doctors.
Please Email the Editor