New Delhi:
Distinguished astrophysicist Stephen Hawking and former Formula 1 racer Michael Schumacher were named in the Supreme Court, which heard a case about “life disposition”, a medical advance directive on end-of-life treatments.
A five-judge constitutional bench led by Judge KM Joseph said it would be up to the legislature to enact a law for terminally ill patients who choose to withdraw treatment, but agreed to override the 2018 guidelines about “will to live”.
He said that if a person signs an advance directive before being affected by the disease, there is a chance that sometimes huge advances will be made later in the field of medical sciences and the disease will become curable.
At the hearing, Judge Anirudhha Bose said, “If you follow Stephen Hawking’s life. At a very young age, there was a prophecy.” Hawking, who died on March 14, 2018, was also a patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and his long survival after diagnosis has been a source of speculation.
Senior lawyer Arvind Datar, who appeared before one of the interveners, said he knows of a case where the person recovered after 21 years.
“Like Michael Schumacher, he is still in a coma. We don’t know what will happen if stem cell research revives him. He is still alive,” he said.
Judge Hrishikesh Roy, who was also part of the bench consisting of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Justice CT Ravikumar, said: “What is a critical illness for an ordinary person of normal wealth is not critical for Michael Schumacher.” The session will continue on Wednesday.
The Supreme Court had recognized in its verdict of March 9, 2018 that a terminally ill patient or a person in a persistent vegetative state may carry out a prior medical directive or a “living will” to refuse medical treatment, with the right to also be dignified life involved “smoothing” the dying process.
It had noted that failure to legally recognize prior medical guidelines could amount to “non-facilitation” of the right to facilitate the dying process, and that dignity in that process was also part of the right to life under Article 21 of the the Constitution.
The Supreme Court had established principles regarding the procedure for the execution of advance directives and set out guidelines and safeguards for the practice of passive euthanasia both in circumstances where advance directives exist and when there are none.
“The directive and guidelines will remain in force until parliament introduces legislation on the matter,” it had said.
The ruling was made on a PIL submitted by the NGO Common Cause, which sought recognition of the “living will” prepared by terminally ill patients for passive euthanasia.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by DailyExpertNews staff and is being published from a syndicated feed.)
Featured video of the day
Exclusive: “Telling China to Take Our Booster,” Adar Poonawalla tells DailyExpertNews