Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Mains level: Need legal clarity of Patient Rights;
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court of India denied permission to the parents of Harish Rana, a 32-year-old man in a vegetative state for 11 years, to remove his Ryles tube which is a device used for feeding.
- A Ryles tube, also known as a nasogastric (NG) tube, is a medical device used for various purposes related to nutrition and gastric management. It is inserted through the nose, passing through the nasal cavity, down the esophagus, and into the stomach.
Recent Supreme Court Judgment:
|
Ethical Challenges:
- Question of whether the decision benefits the patient: The judgment raises concerns about whether the decision benefits the patient, as prolonging life in such a condition may increase suffering.
- Prolonged suffering: The principle of not causing harm is challenged since keeping the patient in a vegetative state with artificial feeding may lead to prolonged suffering for both the patient and their caregivers.
- Against Right to Life and Death: The patient’s rights to a dignified life and death may be compromised which is addressed in various judgments like Common Cause v. Union of India (2018). This judgment recognised the right to die with dignity as part of the right to life under Article 21.
- Autonomy: The patient’s right to choose, which is central to the concept of dignity, has been overlooked. The judgment did not consider the wishes of the patient or their family in determining the course of action.
Need for Legal Clarity:
- Distinguishing Euthanasia from Withdrawal of Life Support: There is a pressing need to legally clarify the difference between euthanasia and the withdrawal of futile life-sustaining interventions.
- Involvement of Medical and Ethical Experts: The decision-making process in such sensitive cases should involve palliative care physicians and ethical experts to ensure that medical and ethical considerations are fully addressed.
- Advance Care Planning: Promoting Advance Medical Directives and Advance Care Planning is crucial to empower individuals to have control over their end-of-life decisions, ensuring that their rights to a good quality of life and death are respected.
- Systemic Reforms: The judgment highlights the need for systemic reforms to avoid forcing families into legal battles and to ensure that patients’ rights are safeguarded with appropriate legal frameworks.
Conclusion: The recent Supreme Court judgment highlights the urgent need for legal clarity, ethical considerations, and systemic reforms to protect patient rights and ensure dignity in end-of-life decisions.
Mains question for practice:
Q Discuss the need for legal clarity and systemic reforms to uphold the dignity and rights of patients in end-of-life decisions. (150 words) 10M
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
