Euthanasia revisited: The aruna shanbaug verdict.
Article
in English
| IMSEAR
| ID: sea-143489
ABSTRACT
Euthanasia and its procedure have long history of locking horns as a vexed issue with laws of countries across the world. Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his/her own body. It is unlawful to administer treatment to an adult who is conscious and of sound mind, without his consent. In patients with Permanently Vegetative State (PVS) and no hope of improvement, the distinction between refusing life saving medical treatment (passive euthanasia) and giving lethal medication is logical, rational, and well established. It is ultimately for the Court to decide, as parens patriae, as to what is in the best interest of the patient. An erroneous decision not to terminate results in maintenance of the status quo; the possibility of subsequent developments such as advancements in medical science, the discovery of new evidence regarding the patient’s intent, changes in the law, or simply the unexpected death of the patient despite the administration of life-sustaining treatment, at least create the potential that a wrong decision will eventually be corrected or its impact mitigated.
Full text:
Available
Index:
IMSEAR (South-East Asia)
Main subject:
Quality of Life
/
Right to Die
/
Humans
/
Euthanasia, Passive
/
Persistent Vegetative State
/
Medical Futility
/
Withholding Treatment
/
India
Type of study:
Prognostic study
Country/Region as subject:
Asia
Language:
English
Year:
2012
Type:
Article
Similar
MEDLINE
...
LILACS
LIS