NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed for removing a clause that mandated approval of a magistrate for withdrawal of life support to a terminally-ill person by way of a ‘living will’. The five-judge bench of Justices K M Joseph, C T Ravikumar, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose and Hrishikesh Roy agreed for empowering the executor of the living will to sign the document. A detailed copy of the order is awaited.
Advance directives are instruments through which persons express their wishes at a prior point in time, when they are capable of making an informed decision, regarding their medical treatment in the future, when they are not in a position to make an informed decision, by reason of being unconscious or in a persistent vegetative state or in a coma.
The bench also agreed and now the document will be signed in the presence of two attesting witnesses which will be attested before a notary or gazetted officer. The notary shall record their satisfaction that the document has been executed voluntarily and without any coercion or inducement and with full understanding of all relevant information and consequences, the court said.
The court’s order came in a plea filed by the Indian Council for Critical Care Medicine, seeking modification of the guidelines for the living will (or the advance medical directive). It was filed on account of problems being faced by people who wanted to get the ‘living will’ registered.
In 2018, the SC in a landmark verdict on passive euthanasia had mandated for the ‘living will’ to be signed by the person making the same in the presence of two witnesses and a first class judicial magistrate (JMFC). The bench had also directed that for giving effect to it in case of the executor becoming terminally ill, the treating physician pursuant to being made aware about the same was also requested to ascertain the genuineness thereof from the jurisdictional JMFC before acting upon the same.
The bench in its 2018 ruling had also directed the witnesses and the jurisdictional JMFC to record their satisfaction that the document has been executed voluntarily and with full understanding of the relevant information and consequences.
Speaking to this newspaper, senior advocate Arvind Datar said, “The purpose of the advance directive is that if a person is terminally ill or not in position to take a decision, they should not unnecessarily prolonged his life.
It also saves the family from taking the cruel decision of switching of the ventilator or taking other steps. Advanced directive all over the world enables a person to choose that because consciously no one can be forced to take treatment. Now the SC has also clarified as to what happens when a terminally-ill person does not have an advanced directive.
One is that the primary board can certify that there is no hope of recovery so that the relatives are saved from the trauma of taking a call of not continuing the treatment.” Dr Rajeev Jayadevan, past president, IMA Cochin, said, “Once made into law, there will be no need to get a first class magistrate’s approval for withdrawal or withholding life support in the case of someone who is terminally ill and has a living will stating these treatment preferences.”
Also in top court
SC on GM Mustard: Concerned over risk factors
Hearing about the conditional approval granted by the Centre for environmental release of genetically modified (GM) Mustard, the SC said it is more concerned about the risk factors than anything else. On October 25 last year, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee under the Union environment ministry had approved the environmental use of transgenic mustard hybrid DMH-11, so they can be used to develop new hybrids.
SC clarifies on remission rules for premature release
The policy of a state government for grant of remission existent at the time of conviction will be applicable while deciding the petition of a convict sentenced to life imprisonment seeking premature release, the SC ruled. The ruling of the CJI-led bench came when the bench was hearing the plea of a life convict whose application for premature release had been rejected by the Gujarat government on several counts.