SC’s call for passive euthanasia
The Tribune Editorial: It is now a legal and ethical watershed reminiscent of the landmark Aruna Shanbaug case
THE Supreme Court’s blunt observation that “we will have to do something now; we can’t allow him to live like this” marks a defining moment in the country’s evolution on end-of-life dignity. The case of the 32-year-old man who has remained in a vegetative state for 13 years is no longer only a medical tragedy. It is now a legal and ethical watershed reminiscent of the landmark Aruna Shanbaug case, which first compelled the nation to confront the question of passive euthanasia. In 2011, the SC, ruling on Shanbaug, a nurse who spent 42 years in a vegetative state after a horrific assault, allowed passive euthanasia in principle but under restrictive safeguards. Her case became the moral trigger that led to the 2018 Constitution Bench judgment legalising passive euthanasia and laying down a process. In 2023, the court further simplified these guidelines, requiring assessments by primary and secondary medical boards, the very process now unfolding.
