Mixed reaction in TN over SC ruling on euthanasia

Sumitha Verghese of Little Drops Home, an old age home in the city, recounted the dilemma she and her family faced when her husband was on the ventilator for the second time, for a Left Ventricle Functional problem. “He was frustrated and was trying to pull out the wires, to indicate that he’s had enough of the situation. He was severely parched, but the doctors advised us against giving him water, only allowing us to wet his lips with ice. When we tried to do that, he bit the ice indicating his thirst. Why should patients be put through this struggle? After all, their quality of life is not even assured,” said Sumitha, who wholeheartedly hailed this judgement, adding that it is better to “remove the life support system than prolong the torture”. 

Legal experts like advocate Sanjay Pinto said that though the judgment is welcome, it exposes several grey areas, warranting further debate. “The Supreme Court has cleared the air that right to live also includes the right to die with dignity, under specific conditions. For the patient and the families, life-support only prolongs the suffering. But what about the scope of misuse? In addition, we have seen patients bouncing back to life miraculously. This requires further debating, since a ‘living will’ too negates the option of a ‘chance recovery’, especially considering the medical advancements and technology available today. My concerns revolve around the grey areas, where there is a scope for misuse and the fact that the possibilities of a ‘medical miracle’ has been totally ruled out,” said the advocate.

Explaining the medical complexities, Dr Rajaram Anantharaman, a senior consultant cardiologist, said, “While the verdict permits the removal of life support systems, it must be noted that every individual case has to be examined by a team of medical people and not be a decision taken by the individual. Doctors have to be trained to be able to diagnose that it is causing a lot of discomfort to the patient and that there is no cure. This is not something that can be practiced by individual practitioners.” 

Traditionally, Tamil Nadu has been opposing the ‘right to die’, fearing misuse. J Radhakrishnan, Health Secretary, explained the state’s stand on the debate, stating, “The state of Tamil Nadu, had in 2015, opposed the Right to Die, owing to the fact that it may be misused for organ transplants. However, the Constitutional bench has now given a set of guidelines on how to go about it until a law is actually formulated.” 

Dissenting this ruling, activist C Anand Raj of Equal Rights, said that government should provide infrastructure for longterm care of terminally ill patients. “The government spends on unnecessary things. Instead, they can set up long-term care centres for such patients and provide a team of psychiatrists, to counsel the family during this harrowing situation,” he concluded.