Hindustan Times ST (Mumbai) - Live
Centre: Won’t enact law on passive euthanasia, suitable norms a must
NEW DELHI: The Union government on Thursday told a Supreme Court Constitution bench that it will not enact a legislation on passive euthanasia, adding that the anxiety to take someone’s life must not outweigh the requirement of essential safeguards.
According to the Centre’s submissions before the five-judge bench, the top court’s 2018 judgment on allowing passive euthanasia after complying with certain safeguards sufficiently occupies the field and that there is no need for a law on the matter.
“A legislation is not required. There is no need of an enactment... Whatever directions have been passed by this court, we accept it,” additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj told the bench, headed by justice KM Joseph.
The ASG emphasised that the government is more concerned about protecting life. “While we have accepted the court’s judgment, there should not be an anxiety to take someone’s life. Our concern is to protect life. Let there be proper checks before this can be done,” said Nataraj.
The ASG further countered a demand for doing away with the involvement of a judicial magistrate in the process of the execution of passive euthanasia, stressing that the issue of taking life will ensue several legalities.
The views of the government came as the bench, which also included justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy and CT Ravikumar, considered modifying the 2018 judgment that had laid down certain guidelines in recognition of living wills made by terminally ill patients for withdrawal of treatment essential to life.
On Tuesday, the bench asked Nataraj about the status of a legislation on the matter, reminding him that the 2018 judgment clearly maintained that the guidelines laid down by it shall remain in force till a legislation is brought on the issue.
Under the 2018 judgment, an adult can make a living will, which should be signed in the presence of two attesting witnesses and affirmed by the concerned judicial magistrate. If the executor of the will becomes terminally ill and goes through prolonged medical treatment with no hope of recovery, the doctor has to constitute a board consisting of experts of general medicine, cardiology, neurology, nephrology, psychiatry or oncology with experience in critical care on the request of family members.
After the certification of the first medical board, the district collector concerned constitutes another board of medical experts. Following the consent of the second medical board, the last call is taken by the magistrate. If the hospital’s medical board denies permission to withdraw medical treatment, the family members of the patient can approach high court, which forms a fresh board of medical experts to enable the court take a final call.
However, a plea, argued by senior counsel Arvind Datar and advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the three-step process encompassing onerous conditions has made the entire judgment nugatory, and that there has not been a single case where someone desirous of exercising the right to passive euthanasia could finally comply with the procedural requirements.
On Thursday, Datar argued that the top court may rethink the need to have a review board after the primary board, consisting of experts from the relevant medical fields, has already taken a call. He also said that there is no need to involve a magistrate or a collector after the medical board’s approval to the withdrawal of life support system.
Nataraj, however, opposed this. “There should be a review board and the decision of the review board must be given to a magistrate because there are issues of legalities involved. The applicants seem to be in a hurry to take away someone’s life. But we want proper checks and safeguards in place,” he said.
At this point, the bench said that the petitioners and the government do not seem to on the same page. “The government, by way of an affidavit in these proceedings, took a stand years ago that it does not want a law. Five years on, it is still telling us the same thing. We are getting kind of contrary signals as you two argue. Why don’t you give to us a joint compilation of guidelines?” it asked the ASG and Datar.
It said the court is willing to “tweak” and “simplify” the process but the government, being an important stakeholder in the entire process, should be on board. “We only want this to be workable so that people can make use of this judgement. Our judgements are not meant to only fill pages. You have a joint meeting and submit a document to us with consensus. Once you agree on what’s agreeable to both of you, we can examine it and pass suitable directions,” said the bench, adjourning the case for January 24.