Right to Die with Dignity: Supreme Court Recognizes Living Will and Advance Medical Directive
The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India & Anr., recognizing the constitutional right of terminally ill patients to refuse medical treatment. This ruling marked a significant milestone in the interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and dignity.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Common Cause (A Registered Society), filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court, seeking recognition of the right to die with dignity and the legalization of an advance medical directive, commonly known as a ‘living will.’ The petition highlighted the suffering of terminally ill patients who are kept alive by artificial means despite having no chance of recovery. It argued that prolonging life in such cases amounts to a violation of their fundamental right to dignity.
Legal Issues Raised
- Whether the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity.
- Whether a terminally ill patient has the right to refuse medical treatment.
- Whether an individual can execute an advance medical directive specifying their wishes regarding end-of-life care.
- The role of the medical fraternity and the legal safeguards required for implementing living wills.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
- The right to life under Article 21 should be interpreted to include the right to die with dignity.
- Forcing an individual to undergo painful medical treatment against their wishes violates their autonomy and personal liberty.
- Countries such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada have recognized euthanasia and assisted dying, providing patients with the option to refuse medical intervention.
- There should be a legally recognized framework to execute an advance medical directive, allowing individuals to make informed choices regarding their medical treatment in case they become incapacitated.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India opposed the plea, arguing that:
- Legalizing the right to die could lead to potential misuse, particularly for the elderly and vulnerable individuals.
- Medical practitioners are ethically bound to sustain life wherever possible, and legal recognition of living wills might create conflicts in the doctor-patient relationship.
- Indian culture and legal principles uphold the sanctity of life, and allowing euthanasia could have unforeseen consequences.
- The government was willing to consider a regulatory framework rather than outright legalization.
Supreme Court’s Observations
1. Right to Life Includes the Right to Die with Dignity
The Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to die with dignity.
“The right to life is not merely about survival but about living with dignity. If a person suffers from a terminal illness, keeping them alive through artificial means when they have no chance of recovery violates their dignity.”
2. Recognition of Advance Medical Directive
The Court acknowledged the importance of advance medical directives and held that individuals have the right to execute such directives.
“An individual’s autonomy in medical decisions must be respected. A person should have the right to refuse treatment through a legally recognized living will.”
3. Safeguards Against Misuse
To prevent misuse, the Court laid down a framework for executing and implementing living wills.
“A medical board must be constituted to assess each case before withholding or withdrawing life support.”
4. Legislative Considerations
The Court urged the government to enact a comprehensive law on end-of-life care.
“While judicial recognition of advance directives is essential, legislative action is required to create a clear legal framework.”
Supreme Court’s Final Verdict
The Supreme Court ruled as follows:
- The right to die with dignity is a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Living wills and advance medical directives are legally valid in India.
- A medical board must confirm the authenticity of a living will before withdrawing life support.
- The government should consider enacting a law on euthanasia and end-of-life care.
Key Takeaways
- The judgment provides terminally ill patients with the right to refuse life-prolonging treatment.
- Living wills allow individuals to specify their medical preferences in advance.
- The ruling emphasizes the dignity and autonomy of individuals in making medical decisions.
- A regulatory framework ensures safeguards against misuse.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a landmark ruling that recognizes the right to die with dignity. By legalizing advance medical directives, the Court has upheld individual autonomy and provided relief to terminally ill patients. The ruling sets a precedent for the future of medical law in India, balancing ethical, legal, and human rights considerations.
Petitioner Name: Common Cause (A Registered Society)Respondent Name: Union of India & Anr.Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A. K. Sikri, Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok BhushanPlace Of Incident: IndiaJudgment Date: 09-03-2018
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Common Cause (A Regi vs Union of India & Anr Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-03-2018.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Declared Infructuous
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments March 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments
See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
