THE larger Indian society crossed a critical milestone when the honourable Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia to the 32-year-old Harish Rana who had been in a comatose condition for the past 12 years. The honourable Justices Mr. J.B. Pardiwala and Mr. K.V. Viswanathan directed the All Indian Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) New Delhi to ensure that life support to the patient was withdrawn with a tailored plan so as to maintain his dignity as he passes out and away. There is no doubt that this would get treated as a precedent in similar cases in future in India and each such case would be handled independently on merit -- in tune with core concept of human dignity.

 

This decision may also add much weight to the global discourse on the issue of euthanasia and may help the larger humanity to take proper stand. For long, the world has debated on the issue of euthanasia. Though most agreed with the basic concept of euthanasia, most civilised societies were finding it difficult to take a firm stand on the issue since it dealt with the choice of death -- though in extreme cases. Since all civilised society have denounced suicide as well as murder as ways of ending life, granting permission to euthanasia became a critical and delicate issue emotionally and spiritually. Of course, some countries did take pick up the courage to cross the rubicon and permit euthanasia. But their number is still small and most countries are still in the process of debate on the issue. Among the worst fears expressed by anti-euthanasia lobby hovered around murder or finishing a human life. What came under serious scrutiny was the negative human propensity to cause death of an unwanted person.

 

The anti-euthanasia lobby feared that some elements may use the legalised provision of euthanasia to end life of some person by tailoring conditions to warrant such an action. Though the lobby that favoured euthanasia insisted that all conditions could be checked and verified before any permission to withdraw life-support of a patient was granted. Despite that, most societies found it very difficult to pass a law permitting euthanasia. The honourable Supreme Court has now cleared the way for such a legal provision as the honourable judges have asked the Union Government to consider bringing a comprehensive legislation making passive euthanasia permissible. In due course, the process would be completed -- signalling that the larger Indian society has completed a critical part of its ongoing journey. The honourable Supreme Court has issued strict instructions to the authorities at the AIIMS that the planned withdrawal of life-support to Harish Rana would have to be undertaken under strict medical supervision. In other words, the doctors would be expected to create conditions when the unfortunate patient suffered least pain as death takes him away finally -- and slowly but surely. The goodwill involved in the process cannot be missed.

 

Yet, the fact also cannot be ignored that when death comes, it must be coming with much pain -- of physical and metaphysical nature. In the case of chronic comatose patients, the pain may not be felt outwardly by people around. Yet, no sure word of assurance would be possible for anyone to give and for anyone to have. A starker side of global social reality is that in countless cases of terminally ill persons dragging on on life-support system, the relatives might have even wished for an early passing away of the patient -- so that the ill person as well as his family and relatives would be spared from the collective pain. In many cases -- naturally unreported -- the family might have even decided to start a slow withdrawal of life-support on their own so that the end came earlier. But all such wrangles would now be hopefully over once the Government brings in an appropriate legislation in this regard.