Euthanasia: Evolving role of the psychiatrists in India

Abstract

Byline: Bir. Chavan, Suravi. Patra The honorable Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgment of legalizing passive euthanasia on 7 [sup]th March 2011. The 110-page long document which gave this verdict was delivered in response to a criminal writ petition filed on behalf of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug in 2009. The petitioner requested for withdrawal of feeding to bring an end to her suffering. She has been lying in a persistent vegetative state since last 36 years following attempt of sexual assault and strangulation by a ward boy when she was on duty at the K. E. M. Hospital. The staffs of the hospital have been providing her with supportive medical care since then. Justice Markandey Katju and Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra in their judgment commended the dedicated efforts of K. E. M. hospital in providing selfless continuous care to Aruna and dismissed the petition. The judgment accepted the significance of the doctrine of "parens patriae" while deciding the case where the affected person has lost the decision-making capacity. This doctrine recognizes the responsibility of the state in taking care of its citizens when they are in need of a father figure to take decision on their behalf. The bench felt that withdrawal of life-supporting measures cannot be left to the sole discretion of the treating physician, relative, care giver, or friend of a person. The judgment has laid provision for care givers of cognitively incapacitated persons to request for non-voluntary and passive euthanasia to the High Court. Till the legislation from the Parliament is in place, the judgment has cited the powers of article 226 of the constitution for such a provision. On receipt of any application for passive euthanasia, the High Court would appoint a board of doctors comprising a physician, a psychiatrist, and a neurologist to examine the patient based on which the court would take the decision about life-supporting treatment. Passive euthanasia is legalized in India in this process. [sup][1] Persistent vegetative state has resulted in Aruna being partially conscious and awake but unaware of her surroundings. Her higher mental functions as well as motor and sensory functions are compromised. The inability to experience self and the environment and the loss of capacity of voluntary control over self questions the very definition of being alive. Being alive is a continuous state of experience from the past to the future and the relationship with family, society, work, and culture rather than being a machine capable of carrying out biological functions. [sup][2] Mere presence of biological functioning cannot define life. The current clinical state of Aruna has sparked off the debate on euthanasia; is life unworthy of living worthy of ending? Is moral dimension of continuing life more important than quality of life? What would Aruna wish had she been capable of expressing her desire? Persistent vegetative state resulting from asphyxiating injury to brain has a poorer prognosis than a traumatic insult. [sup][3] With only 7% chance of improvement in the state of consciousness, the efficacy of current medical interventions remains questionable. Though these interventions can prolong life, their impact on quality of life is not encouraging. Many a times, these interventions are felt as merely prolonging the process of dying. Adding to this is the amount and extent of emotional and financial burden imposed on the care givers. Withdrawal of life-supporting treatment in such states is a difficult decision to take both by the treating physician as well as by the care givers. [sup][4] End of life decisions are complex with ethical, religious, moral, and legal implications. Autonomy and self-determinism have become the guiding principles of life. People have started talking about right to die. They have started deciding their time and mode of death. The whole idea is to have a comfortable painless death at a convenient time. …