Wednesday, May 11 2005 17:48 Hrs (IST) - World Time -

New Delhi: In what could spark a debate in India on euthanasia, the Supreme Court today (May 11, 2005) issued notice to the Centre on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a right for a person, afflicted with terminal disease, to refuse essential medical support systems to prolong his life.

A Bench comprising Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justice P P Naolekar issued the notice on the PIL filed by NGO "Commoncause" which said that when a medical expert opines that the person afflicted with terminal disease has reached a point of no return, then he should be given the right to refuse being put on life support system to prolong his agonies.

The Court also issued notices to Union Ministry of Health and Law and asked the respondents whether the issue has been considered by them and if so, what was the stage of such consideration.

This could lead to a debate akin to that in the case of Terri Shiavo, whose husband fought court cases in USA to get permission to withdraw the life support system from the long-ailing lady, who had suffered brain damage in 1990 following a heart attack.

Appearing for petitioner, advocates Prashant Bhushan and Vishal Gupta contended that those "at the end of their natural life span and likely to go into a state of terminal illness or permanent vegetative state, are deprived of their right to refuse cruel and unwanted medical treatment, like feeding through hydration tubes, being kept on ventillator and other life supporting machines in order to artificially prolong their natural life span".

Referring to the Shiavo case, the Bench said that even in a highly educated society like that in America, the issue of right to die had evoked a sharp debate.

"What about a country like that of India where a substantial population was illiterate," the Bench asked and observed that such a right could even lead to misuse.

At the initial stages of arguments in the case, the apex Court was reluctant to entertain the petition saying the conferment of right to die and to what extent would be falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislature.

It was also caught in a dilemma whether to issue notice to the respondents or to accede to the request of the petitioner to constitute a Committee comprising eminent doctors and social scientists who could generate a public debate on this issue.

Indicating about miracles where persons have been revived from a hopeless medical positions, the Bench even referred to mythology and asked "who can for sure say that a person afflicted with terminal disease could not be cured."

Bhushan contended that a person whose life was ebbing out should be allowed to die, as the continuance of the life with the support system was an unnatural extension of the natural life span.

Touching an emotive chord, the Bench asked "If this type of a right was conferred on a person, who has fallen unconscious due to the terminal disease and if he was rushed to a hospital either by his father or son, should he and the hospital staff be termed as violators of fundamental right conferred on the person."