Euthanasia ruled out for bedridden conscious boy

A division bench comprising Justice N. Kirubakaran and Justice S. Baskaran said, “From the medical expert’s report, it is very clear that the clinical status if the child does not fit into the criteria for PVS. However, his condition cannot be reversed by any medical or surgical therapy. He needs good support and care consisting of nutrition, physiotherapy and Anti-epileptic drugs.”

The report which dwelt on the criteria for diagnosing PVS, which included no evidence of self-awareness, no evidence of sustained involuntary behavioral responses to visual, auditory tactile or noxious stimuli and no evidence of language comprehension or expression said, “The child is conscious and aware of the environment. He interacts with the surroundings by responding to his mother’s voice and sister’s sensory stimuli. He also smiles upon hearing vehicle noises. He has purposeful responses to visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. He withdraws to noxious stimuli, turns his head towards light and smiles when tickled.”

“Therefore, the clinical status of the child does not fit criteria for PVS,” the report added.

The plea for passive euthanasia for the boy T Paavendhan was moved by his father R Thirumeni of Kattumanarkoil, Cuddalore, a tailor. He had submitted that his son has been in vegetative state since birth on September 30, 2008. On November 6, 2008 it was confirmed that he was suffering from Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy (HIE) and suffers epileptic seizures up to 20 times a day when controlled by medicines and at times the maximum number of such attacks goes up to 150 in a single day.

Also, the bench on reading out the experts report to the child’s father, also pointed out to an affidavit filed by the State that an NGO called Prem Nikethan in Arakkonam is interested to take care of the child and provide necessary support for his well-being.

However, the boy’s father expressed disinclination to give the child to anybody else and he alone would take care of the child, if the prayer sought for by him is not granted.

But the bench on observing, “It is understood from his reaction that he is more emotionally attached to his child, which is obviously expected from a father,” sought to know from the counsels appearing for the State and Centre as to whether it is possible to financially support his parents by way of monthly financial aid and to provide regular medical support. Also, directing the Centre and State to give their response as to whether there is any scheme to provide support to the parents similarly placed children by giving financial aid as well as medical aid said, “If no such scheme is available, why not the State and the Centre formulate a scheme by which the parents of such children would be able to maintain their children without any financial burden by provision of appropriate financial aid and medical aid by the Governments throughout the life of the children.”

With the petitioner’s counsel Kavitha Rameshwar seeking time to go through the report and to give her response, the bench posted the case for further hearing on October 23.

The plea, which is a first of its kind in the country after the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, through its order dated March 18 in Common Cause case, held that the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live with dignity till the end and it therefore includes the right to die with dignity.