The parents appealed to the Supreme Court for the ‘euthanasia’ of their only son. They told that their 30-year-old son has been in a vegetative state in the hospital since 2013 after suffering a head injury. They have been waiting for his recovery for the last 11 years. But due to the increasing expenses and the low possibility of recovery by the doctors, they are now demanding ‘euthanasia’ for the son. The parents requested in the petition that a medical board be formed to remove the Ryles tube inserted in their son, so that he can get passive euthanasia and get relief from the pain he is suffering. The Ryles tube is a disposable tube that is inserted into the stomach through the nose, giving access to the nasogastric tract. It is used to deliver both food and medicine to the stomach.
However, the Supreme Court refused to allow euthanasia and sought a response from the Centre on the couple’s plea. “Removal of the Ryles tube is not a part of passive euthanasia. If the Ryles tube is removed, the patient will starve to death,” the Supreme Court said. It also asked the government to “please find out if any institution can take care of this person”. The apex court said that instead of allowing passive euthanasia, it would explore the possibility of shifting the patient to a government hospital or similar place for treatment and care.
Despite limited income, the parents (Ashok Rana, 62, and Nirmala Devi, 55) struggled hard to save their son. Their son fell from the fourth floor of a paying guest (PG) accommodation in Mohali while pursuing graduation in civil engineering. He suffered from severe head injuries and quadriplegia (100% disability). His counsel told a bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra that the father’s meagre pension is not enough to support the family. They were forced to sell their house in 2021 to meet their son’s mounting medical expenses.
On this, the apex court agreed with the findings of the Delhi High Court, which had refused to constitute a medical board to consider the plea of ​​the parents that their son be allowed to undergo passive euthanasia. Under passive euthanasia, a patient is allowed to die by removing life support systems or stopping treatment.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra said that the patient Harish Rana is not being put on ventilator or any other mechanical assistance to save his life but he is being fed through a food tube, hence it would not be right to leave him on his condition.
The court also considered the fact that the patient has been in a coma for 11 years after falling from the fourth floor of a building and his aged parents are finding it difficult to sustain him through treatment as they have even sold their house. The bench said that the High Court rightly rejected the plea of ​​the parents to constitute a medical board to allow passive euthanasia to Rana as no medical professional would cause death by administering any substance to a patient who is alive without any mechanical or ventilator support.
The bench also said that the high court also considered the fact that the patient’s parents are now old and cannot take care of their son who has been bedridden for so many years and whether any humane solution can be found other than abandoning him in his condition. The apex court said, “Therefore, we issue notice to the Center and request Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati to assist us. We will see if he can be kept somewhere else. This is a very difficult case.” Later, the bench asked Bhati, who was present in the court in another case, whether there was any possibility of admitting Rana to a hospital where he could be taken care of. The law officer said, “I will look into it. I will find out about it and assist the court.”
In July, the high court had refused to refer Rana’s case to a medical board. According to the petition, the petitioner (around 30 years old) was a student of Punjab University and suffered head injuries after falling from the fourth floor of his paying guest accommodation in 2013. The petition states that the petitioner’s family has tried their best to treat him, but there has been no improvement in his condition.
(Input Agency)