NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday quoted from William Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” as it approved passive euthanasia for 31-year-old Harish Rana, who has been in a vegetative state since August 2013 following a fall from a building in Chandigarh.Also Read: SC allows withdrawal of life support in Harish Rana passive euthanasia case The ruling, delivered by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan, marks the first time passive euthanasia has been permitted in India. Justice Pardiwala referenced Shakespeare’s famous line, “To be or not to be,’” noting that it is now being used to judicially interpret the Right to Die.“The famous literary Shakespeare quote ‘To be or not to be’ is now being used for judicially interpreting the ‘Right to Die,” Justice Pardiwala noted at the beginning of the judgment. The bench also commended Rana’s parents for their care and resilience. “You are not giving up on your son. You are allowing him to live with dignity,” Justice Pardiwala said while concluding the judgment. The court reasoned that, according to medical reports, continued administration of Clinically Assisted Nutrition (CAN) would not be in Rana’s best interest. It directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to provide facilities to shift him to its palliative care department, ensuring a dignified withdrawal of medical support.Also Read: Who is Harish Rana? Ghaziabad man in vegetative state for 12 years at centre of Supreme Court’s passive euthanasia rulingPassive euthanasia involves withdrawing life-sustaining treatment for patients in a persistent vegetative state to allow a natural death.In October 2024, the Union health ministry released draft “Guidelines for Withdrawal of Life Support in Terminally Ill Patients,” stating that such decisions must be based on a considered medical opinion. According to the draft, withdrawal of life support is permissible under four conditions.According to the draft guidelines the withdrawal includes four conditions: a) any individual declared brainstem death as per THOTA Act. b) Medical prognostication and considered opinion that patient’s disease condition is advanced and not likely to benefit from aggressive therapeutic interventions c) Patient/surrogate documented informed refusal, following prognostic awareness, to continue life support d) Compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court. (With ANI inputs)
