Recently, the Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the case of a 32-year-old man in an irreversible vegetative state for over 13 years. This has focused the nation’s attention on the right to live and the right to die with dignity. The culturally-sensitive issue involves complex medical, legal, and ethical considerations concerning patient autonomy and dignity. By allowing life support to be withdrawn in this case, the Court reaffirmed that forcing a person to exist indefinitely in a vegetative state may undermine this very dignity.

The Court has addressed this dilemma earlier too. In the historic Aruna Shanbaug ruling in 2011, the Court first recognised passive euthanasia under strict guidelines. This view was further strengthened in the landmark Common Cause v. Union of India judgment in 2018, where some of us who have been passionate about this cause went to the Supreme Court, and a Constitution bench held that the “right to die with dignity” is a basic right. That decision also legally recognised passive euthanasia and the concept of advanced medical directive “living will,” allowing persons to spell out their wishes concerning medical treatment, in case they become incapable of making decisions in the future.

The present case builds upon these precedents, with the Court emphasising that the law must sometimes acknowledge the limits of medicine. Modern medical technology has made it possible to artificially sustain bodily functions for prolonged periods. However, continuing medical intervention in life limiting conditions may just delay death, not prolong life — thereby prolonging suffering for the patient and........

© hindustantimes