Aruna Ramchandra
Shanbaug Vs Union of India (2011)
Judges
· Justice
MarkandeyKatju
· Justice
Gyan ShudhaMishra
Facts
1.
A
writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 by
Ms. Pinki Virani on behalf of the victim Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug, claiming to
be the next friend.
2.
Aruna
Ramchandra Shanbaug was a nurse at the King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel
Mumbai. On the night of 27th November 1973. In the empty edifice of
the hospital, she was attacked by a sweeper named Valmiki.
3.
Arunawas
strangulated with a dog chain which stopped the supply of oxygen to her brain
and caused her a permanent brain damage. The attacker on trying to rape her
found that Arunawas menstruating, sodomized her and robbed her ear rings.
4.
The
very next morning she was found by the hospital staff with blood spilled all
over her surroundings.
5.
After
this horrific incident, Aruna was in a Permanent Vegetative State for the next
36 years, surviving on mashed food and water. She was fed with the help of pipes
as she could not move her body.
6.
After
filing of the petition by the KEM hospital (respondent no.3) and the Bombay
Municipal Corporation(respondent no.4), the honorable court by its judgement
dated 24th January 2011 directed a team of three eminent doctors to
verify and understand the exact mental and physical condition of the victim.
7.
She
was not declared brain dead as she responded to changes in her environment. For
example, she liked devotional music and preferred fish soup, she also got
uncomfortable with the presence of a lot of people around her.
8.
She
was kept clean by the hospital staff all the time and was duly taken care of
with all the required medications and treatments.
9.
She
died on 18th May 2015 suffering from Pneumonia at the KEM Hospital.
She was on ventilator at KEM’s Acute Care Unit
ISSUES
1.
When
a person is in a Permanent Vegetative State is the withdrawal of the life
support system a feasible option?
2.
Should
the patient's wishes be honored if he or she has previously stated a desire to avoid
life-sustaining therapies in the event of futile care or a PVS?
3.
Should
a person's family or next of kin make a request to withhold or discontinue
ineffective life-sustaining therapies if he has not previously voiced such a
wish?
Judgement
In the judgement
given by the honorable court it was held that every patient has a right to self
determination of the treatment that they want to be administered with. But in
order to accomplish the same the patient should also be competent enough if not
then the person who is the next friend may make decisions on behalf of the
patients. It is to be noted that the person making the decision should act in a
way which may have been followed by the patient if he\she was competent enough.
The beneficence should act in the
favor of the patient. In the aforementioned case the court had no indication of
the wishes of the patient, so here the dean of the KEM hospital was considered
as the next friend as he was the representative of the medical institution that
had taken care of the victim for 36 long years. It was also held by the court
that the surrogate i.e. the KEM hospital
has the prerogative to decide if the life sustaining system should be continued
with or should it be removed as they being the ones taking care of the patient
for such a long time are in the best position to decide the same.Thus, the apex
court decided that Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug was not brain dead. Further it was
stated that aruna could breathe on her own and also did not require any
machines. She responded to devotional music, and also expressed her reactions
toward her favorite food. Thus, the removal of saving techniques would deprive
her of the food that she was intaking which cannot be justified under any
Indian law. Hence, ArunaShaunbag was denied passive euthanasia. The judgement
also advanced the idea of repealing article 309 of the Indian Penal Code.
Conclusion
This case has two important factors that
need to be addressed, first is Euthanasia. Euthanasia also known as mercy
killing is the act of killing a patient who has been in a lifelong state of
coma. Euthanasia is of two types Active and Passive. Active euthanasia is where
the doctors use some hazardous substances to end the life of a patient and
passive euthanasia is where the life support system and similar techniques are
withdrawn in order to end the suffering of an ailing patient. This case
legalized passive euthanasia in our country but on due consultation with the
high court and high court appointed doctors,this in turn made the process too
tedious and time consuming which is again counterproductive to the whole idea
of providing relief to a patient already suffering unconditionally, this judgement
also made the access of euthanasia a little to easy which again increased the
scope of misuse of this provision. Also, this judgement brings our attention to
Article 21 of the Indian constitution, where this article talks about right to
life the question comes up whether or not it includes right to die as well.
This judgement tangles with the thread that lies between right to die and right
to die in a dignified manner. We can understand simply that right to a
dignified death is different from right to die as the former does not shortens
the actual life of a person but provides death in the form a relief to a person
facing long term physical and mental agony. This case marked the genesis of the
discussion regarding passive euthanasia and also amplified the ambit to Article
21. This judgement proved to be a landmark case as it was both progressive in
nature and also addressed an uncanny problem most of which does not see the
light of the day.
Precedents
1.
State of Maharashtra v. Maruti SripatiDubal
2.
P. Rathinam v. Union of India
3.
Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
0 Comments