Supreme Court Establishes Medical Board to Evaluate Passive Euthanasia for Quadriplegic UP Man in Vegetative State

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Noida district hospital to establish a primary medical board to evaluate the possibility of passive euthanasia for a 31-year-old man who has been in a vegetative state for over a decade.

The patient, Harish Rana, suffers from 100 percent disability quadriplegia, with his condition deteriorating from bad to worse according to the court.

Passive euthanasia involves the deliberate action of allowing a patient to die by withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment or support.

Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan instructed the district hospital in Noida sector 39 to submit their report within two weeks regarding the application filed by the patient's father.

"We want the primary board to provide us with a report indicating whether life-sustaining treatment can be withheld. Once we receive this report, we will proceed with further orders. This process should be completed within two weeks," the bench stated.

This marks the second time in consecutive years that Rana's parents have approached the Supreme Court seeking passive euthanasia for their son.

In November of last year, the court acknowledged a Union Health Ministry report recommending home care for the patient with assistance from the Uttar Pradesh government, including regular doctor visits and physiotherapy.

The court had also suggested that if home care proved unfeasible, the patient could be transferred to the Noida district hospital to ensure appropriate medical attention given his condition.

During Thursday's proceedings, advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, representing the father, expressed gratitude for the state government's assistance but indicated that all attempted measures had been unsuccessful.

"Currently, he falls ill frequently and requires hospitalization. I am requesting that his case be referred to a primary board in accordance with this court's judgment in the Common Cause case of 2018. If doctors determine his treatment could be withheld, the next step would involve constituting a secondary board for further evaluation," she explained.

The counsel clarified that they were not seeking active euthanasia but passive euthanasia, which according to the court's previous judgment, allows for withholding life treatment to end suffering.

After reviewing the reports, Justice Pardiwala commented, "Just look at the condition of the boy. It's pathetic." The bench instructed the registry to forward the order to both the Noida hospital and the office of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati.

In August last year, describing this as "a very hard case," the Supreme Court had sought the Centre's response regarding the plea from Rana's parents. Rana, formerly a Punjab University student, had sustained severe head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his accommodation in 2013.

He has remained completely bedridden and dependent on artificial support for 12 years since the accident.

The court had previously agreed with the Delhi High Court's refusal to establish a medical board for considering passive euthanasia, noting that Rana was not on ventilator or mechanical life support but was being fed through a food pipe, which did not constitute grounds for passive euthanasia.

Nevertheless, the court acknowledged that Rana had been in a vegetative state for over a decade, and his elderly parents were struggling to maintain his treatment, having even sold their house to cover expenses.

In July last year, the Delhi High Court had declined to refer Rana's case to a medical board for passive euthanasia consideration.

The High Court stated that the facts indicated the man was not being kept alive mechanically and could sustain himself without external aid.

"While the court sympathizes with the parents, since the petitioner is not terminally ill, this court cannot intervene and consider a prayer that is legally untenable," the High Court had ruled.

The High Court also referenced several Supreme Court verdicts that established active euthanasia as legally impermissible.

"The petitioner is alive, and no one, including physicians, is permitted to cause another person's death by administering lethal drugs, even if the objective is to relieve pain and suffering," the High Court had concluded.