Aruna Shanbaug Case On Euthanasia And Medical Ethics
1. Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011) - India
Facts:
Aruna Shanbaug was a nurse who was assaulted in 1973, leaving her in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) for over 37 years. She was cared for in the hospital but remained unconscious. In 2011, journalist Pinki Virani filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India seeking permission for euthanasia (passive euthanasia) to end her life.
Legal Issues:
Whether passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) is permissible under Indian law.
The rights of a patient in a vegetative state.
Ethical concerns around consent and dignity in death.
Supreme Court Judgment:
The Court rejected the petition to allow euthanasia in Aruna’s case, as the hospital staff refused to withdraw care.
However, it laid down guidelines allowing passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) under strict conditions, with court approval.
This was the first time the Supreme Court recognized passive euthanasia as legally permissible in India.
Significance:
It balanced the ethical concerns of preserving life versus dignity in death.
Established procedural safeguards to prevent misuse.
Recognized patient autonomy and the role of medical ethics.
2. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) - India
Facts:
This case dealt with the constitutionality of the right to die and euthanasia in India. The petitioner argued that the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution included the right to die with dignity.
Legal Issues:
Whether the “right to life” includes the “right to die.”
Whether euthanasia is legal under Indian Penal Code.
Supreme Court Judgment:
The Court held that the right to life does not include the right to die.
Suicide and abetment to suicide are illegal.
However, it left open the possibility of passive euthanasia in some cases (which later came in Aruna Shanbaug).
Significance:
This judgment set the stage for the debate on euthanasia.
It emphasized the state's duty to protect life but allowed some space for passive euthanasia with safeguards.
3. Mercy Killing Case (Common Cause v. Union of India, 2018) - India
Facts:
The petitioner, a non-governmental organization, sought legal recognition of the right to die with dignity, including living wills and passive euthanasia.
Legal Issues:
Legalizing advance directives (living wills).
Formal recognition of passive euthanasia under Indian law.
Supreme Court Judgment:
The Court recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21.
It legalized passive euthanasia and living wills with strict guidelines.
It created a process for withdrawal of life support with approval by medical boards and courts.
Significance:
This case brought clarity and structure to euthanasia laws in India.
It empowered patients to make decisions about their end-of-life care.
It balanced medical ethics with patient autonomy.
4. Karen Ann Quinlan Case (1975) - United States
Facts:
Karen Ann Quinlan fell into a persistent vegetative state after consuming alcohol and drugs. Her parents sought to withdraw life support, but the hospital refused.
Legal Issues:
The right to refuse medical treatment.
Ethical dilemma of prolonging life versus quality of life.
Court Judgment:
The New Jersey Supreme Court allowed withdrawal of life support, recognizing the right to privacy and self-determination.
It was the first U.S. case to recognize the right to die through passive euthanasia.
Significance:
Set a precedent in U.S. law for patient autonomy.
Led to the development of legal frameworks for end-of-life decisions.
5. Bland Case (Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland, 1993) - United Kingdom
Facts:
Anthony Bland was left in a persistent vegetative state after the Hillsborough disaster. The hospital sought legal permission to withdraw life-sustaining treatment.
Legal Issues:
Whether withdrawing life support constituted euthanasia or lawful medical practice.
Ethical considerations in end-of-life care.
Court Judgment:
The House of Lords allowed withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration.
It distinguished between euthanasia and withdrawing medical treatment.
Significance:
This case clarified the legality of passive euthanasia in the UK.
It reinforced the role of medical ethics and patient welfare in such decisions.
Summary of Key Points:
Passive euthanasia (withdrawing life support) is generally recognized with strict safeguards.
Active euthanasia (deliberate act to end life) remains illegal in most jurisdictions.
Courts balance patient autonomy, medical ethics, and state interest in preserving life.
Legal recognition of living wills/advance directives empowers patient choices.
Persistent vegetative state cases highlight the ethical dilemma between prolonging life and dignity in death.
RELATED Blog
0 comments