According to the medical lexicon, euthanasia is the act or practice of killing or allowing the death of terminally ill or injured beings (such as humans or domestic animals) in a relatively painless manner for the sake of mercy. Such a step may be made for patients nearing death, but not otherwise.
The Karnataka government’s decision to establish medical boards to facilitate the right to die with dignity is a landmark step towards compassionate end-of-life care.
Passive euthanasia Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapy (WLST)] based on living wills is a significant move taken by the State of Karnataka, reassuring that life entails not only living with dignity but also dying with dignity.
“This is a good move by the state government. The government has taken a positive step towards realising the right to die with dignity. However, the details of this plan will clearly need to outline the conditions under which passive euthanasia is allowed and the procedures that must be followed. In Common Cause v Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court of India recognised the right to die with dignity is an important facet of the rights to life and liberty because our constitutional conception of the right to life goes far beyond assuring ‘mere animal existence’. The right to die with dignity applies to terminally ill patients and those on life support,” says Dolashree Mysoor, Associate Professor at the School of Law RV University.
What doctors need is a working knowledge of how a person may make an ‘Advanced Directive’ or a ‘Living Will’. Doctors must be informed of their rights and obligations in such cases so that they don’t fear criminal action against them. So, what is the role of doctors in such cases apart from being a care-provider? Written Advance Directives can be made voluntarily by healthy people who can provide consent. In such directives, the person may express their right to refuse treatment in cases of terminal illnesses. These directives must clearly instruct the circumstances under which treatment is to be withdrawn and must name an Executor. Furthermore, these directives must be recorded before witnesses and signed by the local magistrate.
“Where a doctor is following such an advance directive, the government’s policy must make sure that there are clear protections from legal liability for doctors. Doctors must be adequately protected from unnecessary and malicious civil or criminal proceedings. This means that the doctor must be provided adequate legal authority to withdraw care and treatment as per the wishes of the patient. In realising the patient’s rights, the government must ensure that medical staff are allowed to undertake these procedures in consultation with the family. Where families are uncooperative (unless the Executor of the directive revokes it legally), medical professionals must be legally vested with the sufficient protections to carry out the wishes of the patient. This must include the doctor’s rights to restrict entry for family members opposing the implementation of the Advance Directive. The government should mandate necessary security arrangements at hospitals so that security staff may assist medical staff in volatile situations. Finally, the government must mandate the required paper trail for this process so that doctors are well protected with adequate evidence in their favour,” adds Mysoor.
Read the full story that first appeared in Our Bangalore dated Feb 8-14 here:
Leave a Reply