Terminally ill Australians can for the first time apply to end their own life after new laws went into effect in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/bushfires-destroy-more-than-30-houses-in-australias-victoria-state-202119">the state of Victoria</a> Wednesday. &nbsp;

The country's second most populous region made voluntary euthanasia legal under closely specified circumstances, a first for the country.&nbsp;

Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, who supported the bill after his father's death from cancer in 2016, said the laws were about giving patients a "dignified option at the end of their life".

"We've taken a compassionate approach," Andrews told commercial broadcaster Channel Nine, adding that he hoped it would bring people the dignity of a "good death."

Assisted suicide is illegal in most countries and in Australia until Victoria state introduced laws to legalise the practice in 2017.

The scheme will be accessible only to terminally ill adult patients with fewer than six months to live, or one year left to live for sufferers of conditions such as motor neurone disease and multiple sclerosis.

Multiple restrictions will be put in place, including residency requirements and assessments from multiple doctors, meaning around 12 people are expected to use the law this year.

Andrews said that up to 150 might use the law each year after that. An independent review board and a coroner will track and monitor all deaths.

Other states in Australia have debated assisted dying in the past, but the proposals have always been defeated.

But experts said other states will now be watching closely to see how the law is implemented and whether they should follow suit.

"Although over forty attempts to change the law in Australia have failed in the past, more recent reform efforts appear to be getting closer to laws changing," Ben White from Queensland University of Technology's Australian Centre for Health Law Research said.

"Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia (states) all have inquiries considering a change."&nbsp;

The law has been criticised for being both too permissive and too stringent.

Prominent Australian euthanasia activist Philip Nitschke told Melbourne's The Age that the safeguards were "too strict and onerous" and could result in "challenges to the law pressing to broaden access".

The Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne said in a statement that the law was a &nbsp;"new and deeply troubling chapter of health care in Victoria".

"Pope Francis has encouraged ordinary Catholics everywhere to resist euthanasia and to protect the old, the young and the vulnerable from being cast aside in a 'throw-away culture'," the Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Comensoli and three other Victoria bishops said.

Terminally ill Australians can for the first time apply to end their own life after new laws went into effect in the state of Victoria Wednesday. The country's second most populous region made voluntary euthanasia legal under closely specified circumstances, a first for the country.

Terminally ill Australians can for the first time apply to end their own life after new laws went into effect in the state of Victoria Wednesday. The country's second most populous region made voluntary euthanasia legal under closely specified circumstances, a first for the country. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews, who supported the bill after his father's death from cancer in 2016, said the laws were about giving patients a "dignified option at the end of their life". "We've taken a compassionate approach," Andrews told commercial broadcaster Channel Nine, adding that he hoped it would bring people the dignity of a "good death." Assisted suicide is illegal in most countries and in Australia until Victoria state introduced laws to legalise the practice in 2017. The scheme will be accessible only to terminally ill adult patients with fewer than six months to live, or one year left to live for sufferers of conditions such as motor neurone disease and multiple sclerosis. Multiple restrictions will be put in place, including residency requirements and assessments from multiple doctors, meaning around 12 people are expected to use the law this year. Andrews said that up to 150 might use the law each year after that. An independent review board and a coroner will track and monitor all deaths. Other states in Australia have debated assisted dying in the past, but the proposals have always been defeated. But experts said other states will now be watching closely to see how the law is implemented and whether they should follow suit. "Although over forty attempts to change the law in Australia have failed in the past, more recent reform efforts appear to be getting closer to laws changing," Ben White from Queensland University of Technology's Australian Centre for Health Law Research said. "Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia (states) all have inquiries considering a change." The law has been criticised for being both too permissive and too stringent. Prominent Australian euthanasia activist Philip Nitschke told Melbourne's The Age that the safeguards were "too strict and onerous" and could result in "challenges to the law pressing to broaden access". The Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne said in a statement that the law was a "new and deeply troubling chapter of health care in Victoria". "Pope Francis has encouraged ordinary Catholics everywhere to resist euthanasia and to protect the old, the young and the vulnerable from being cast aside in a 'throw-away culture'," the Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Comensoli and three other Victoria bishops said.

Euthanasia becomes legal in the Australian state of Victoria

The switching off from Monday of the life support for a<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/parents-appeal-to-french-president-in-right-to-die-case-219660"> Frenchman who has been in a vegetative state for 10 years</a> comes after a six-year legal dispute between his relatives, which rekindled the country's heated debate over euthanasia.

Here is an overview of the case of Vincent Lambert:

Vegetative state&nbsp;

The former psychiatric nurse suffers severe brain damage in a car accident in 2008 that leaves him a quadriplegic at the age of 32.

He is admitted to a hospital in the northeastern city of Reims, where doctors say in 2011 that he is in a vegetative state without hope of improvement.

In 2013 the hospital initiates procedures to cut off life-sustaining intravenous food and water, in line with the wishes of his wife and other relatives.

She and others say Lambert made clear before the accident that he would not want to be kept alive artificially in such circumstances, though this was never put in writing.

But the move is contested by his Catholic parents and two siblings, who urge a local court to rule that life support should continue, which it does.

Taken to higher courts&nbsp;

In January 2014 doctors inform the family for a second time they will stop feeding Lambert intravenously, in line with France's "passive" euthanasia law, which allows doctors to withdraw support for seriously ill or injured patients with no chance of recovery,

But five days later a court rules his treatment must continue, on the request of his parents.&nbsp;

His wife and the hospital appeal to France's supreme administrative court, the State Council, which orders a new medical assessment.

After experts determine that Lambert cannot recover and his condition has even worsened, the council rules in June 2014 that he should be allowed to die.

Lambert's parents take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which says he must be kept alive as it considers the case.&nbsp;

In June 2015 the court backs the State Council's decision.

The following month the hospital announces a third plan to start procedures to end life support, but days later doctors refuse to follow through, citing security fears as the case enrages pro-life activists.

Fourth attempt&nbsp;

In September 2017 doctors announce a fourth bid to withdraw the life support. Lambert's parents again appeal to the State Council, but the request is rejected in January 2018.

In April a court asks for another medical opinion, at the request of his parents. But the experts involved withdrawing in June, citing criticism and attempts at manipulation.

In November a new assessment concludes that Lambert's chronic vegetative state is irreversible.

In January 2019 a court near Reims upholds the decision to withdraw life support. Lambert's parents again appeal to the State Council and the Europe court, but in vain.

In May a UN committee on disabled rights asks France to suspend any action while it studies the case.

Days later Lambert's doctor says he plans to end life support during the week of May 20. A new court appeal by his parents fails.&nbsp;

On May 18 they ask President Emmanuel Macron to intervene, as France's Conference of Bishops urges doctors to wait for the UN committee's findings.&nbsp;

On May 20 doctors begin switching off the life support.

The switching off from Monday of the life support for a Frenchman who has been in a vegetative state for 10 years comes after a six-year legal dispute between his relatives, which rekindled the country's heated debate over euthanasia.

The switching off from Monday of the life support for a Frenchman who has been in a vegetative state for 10 years comes after a six-year legal dispute between his relatives, which rekindled the country's heated debate over euthanasia. Here is an overview of the case of Vincent Lambert: Vegetative state The former psychiatric nurse suffers severe brain damage in a car accident in 2008 that leaves him a quadriplegic at the age of 32. He is admitted to a hospital in the northeastern city of Reims, where doctors say in 2011 that he is in a vegetative state without hope of improvement. In 2013 the hospital initiates procedures to cut off life-sustaining intravenous food and water, in line with the wishes of his wife and other relatives. She and others say Lambert made clear before the accident that he would not want to be kept alive artificially in such circumstances, though this was never put in writing. But the move is contested by his Catholic parents and two siblings, who urge a local court to rule that life support should continue, which it does. Taken to higher courts In January 2014 doctors inform the family for a second time they will stop feeding Lambert intravenously, in line with France's "passive" euthanasia law, which allows doctors to withdraw support for seriously ill or injured patients with no chance of recovery, But five days later a court rules his treatment must continue, on the request of his parents. His wife and the hospital appeal to France's supreme administrative court, the State Council, which orders a new medical assessment. After experts determine that Lambert cannot recover and his condition has even worsened, the council rules in June 2014 that he should be allowed to die. Lambert's parents take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which says he must be kept alive as it considers the case. In June 2015 the court backs the State Council's decision. The following month the hospital announces a third plan to start procedures to end life support, but days later doctors refuse to follow through, citing security fears as the case enrages pro-life activists. Fourth attempt In September 2017 doctors announce a fourth bid to withdraw the life support. Lambert's parents again appeal to the State Council, but the request is rejected in January 2018. In April a court asks for another medical opinion, at the request of his parents. But the experts involved withdrawing in June, citing criticism and attempts at manipulation. In November a new assessment concludes that Lambert's chronic vegetative state is irreversible. In January 2019 a court near Reims upholds the decision to withdraw life support. Lambert's parents again appeal to the State Council and the Europe court, but in vain. In May a UN committee on disabled rights asks France to suspend any action while it studies the case. Days later Lambert's doctor says he plans to end life support during the week of May 20. A new court appeal by his parents fails. On May 18 they ask President Emmanuel Macron to intervene, as France's Conference of Bishops urges doctors to wait for the UN committee's findings. On May 20 doctors begin switching off the life support.

France's six-year battle over a man's life support

Australian academic David Goodall left for Switzerland today to end his life. Goodall turned 104 last month and made just one wish, to end his life.

In a video released by Reuters, Goodall notes that he enjoyed his life until he was 90 years old after which he didn't. &nbsp

"I greatly regret having reached that age," Goodall said.

Goodall will receive voluntary euthanasia at a clinic in Basel, Switzerland. His home state, Western Australia, identifies voluntary euthanasia as illegal.

The state of Victoria became first in Australia to legalise assisted dying last year limiting the provision to only terminally ill.

Goodall's family supports his decision and respects his choice to end his life.&nbsp

"He's lived a really good 104 years, and so whatever happens, whatever choices are made, they're up to him," Goodall's daughter Karen noted.&nbsp

Born in London, the United Kingdom on April 4, 1914, David William Goodall AM was an honorary research associate at Edith Cowan University until recently.&nbsp

Goodall moved to Australian in 1948 and lived as an academic, botanist and ecologist studying the development of numerical methods in ecology, particularly the study of vegetation.

(With inputs from Reuters)&nbsp

Goodall will receive voluntary euthanasia at a clinic in Basel, Switzerland

Australian academic David Goodall left for Switzerland today to end his life. Goodall turned 104 last month and made just one wish, to end his life. In a video released by Reuters, Goodall notes that he enjoyed his life until he was 90 years old after which he didn't. "I greatly regret having reached that age," Goodall said. Goodall will receive voluntary euthanasia at a clinic in Basel, Switzerland. His home state, Western Australia, identifies voluntary euthanasia as illegal. The state of Victoria became first in Australia to legalise assisted dying last year limiting the provision to only terminally ill. Goodall's family supports his decision and respects his choice to end his life. "He's lived a really good 104 years, and so whatever happens, whatever choices are made, they're up to him," Goodall's daughter Karen noted. Born in London, the United Kingdom on April 4, 1914, David William Goodall AM was an honorary research associate at Edith Cowan University until recently. Goodall moved to Australian in 1948 and lived as an academic, botanist and ecologist studying the development of numerical methods in ecology, particularly the study of vegetation. (With inputs from Reuters)

Australian academic David Goodall leaves for Switzerland to end his life

Days after Maharashtra government assented to some of the demands of farmers who staged a protest in Mumbai, about 91 farmers in Buldhana district from Amravati division of the state submitted a letter to the Governor and SDO seeking permission for euthanasia.

The farmers' claim that they are not being paid the remunerative prices for crops and adequate compensation for their land.

The state government acquired their land for the construction of a highway.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb">Maharashtra: 91 farmers from Buldhana submitted a letter to the Governor & SDO seeking permission for Euthanasia as they are not getting remunerative prices for crops and adequate compensation for their land which has been aquired by the government for construction of a highway. <a href="https://t.co/lltXRgrjpt">pic.twitter.com/lltXRgrjpt</a>&mdash ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/978129857258446848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">26 March 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Earlier this month, over 50,000 farmers led by the All India Kisan Sabha headed to Mumbai from Nashik, protesting against the agrarian distress in the state.

The farmers demanded a complete loan waiver amongst other things.

The farmers said they were not being paid remunerative prices for their crops or adequate compensation for their land acquired by the government

Days after Maharashtra government assented to some of the demands of farmers who staged a protest in Mumbai, about 91 farmers in Buldhana district from Amravati division of the state submitted a letter to the Governor and SDO seeking permission for euthanasia. The farmers' claim that they are not being paid the remunerative prices for crops and adequate compensation for their land. The state government acquired their land for the construction of a highway. Maharashtra: 91 farmers from Buldhana submitted a letter to the Governor & SDO seeking permission for Euthanasia as they are not getting remunerative prices for crops and adequate compensation for their land which has been aquired by the government for construction of a highway. pic.twitter.com/lltXRgrjpt &mdash ANI (@ANI) 26 March 2018 Earlier this month, over 50,000 farmers led by the All India Kisan Sabha headed to Mumbai from Nashik, protesting against the agrarian distress in the state. The farmers demanded a complete loan waiver amongst other things.

91 Maharashtra farmers write to Governor, seek euthanasia

In a series of recent landmark judgments, the Hon&#39;ble Supreme Court, on March, 9, 2018, added another feather to its cap when it put to rest the long-debated issue of euthanasia i.e. mercy killing. Indian society had, for long, considered the concept of mercy killing as a taboo and had prevented itself from opening up to the idea and, as such, the political dispensations had also been reluctant in promulgating the relevant legislations on the subject.

However, the change came about with the case of Aruna Shanbaug which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2011, wherein, the apex court permitted passive euthanasia and issued strict guidelines for the same which included a clearance from the jurisdictional high court. The latest verdict of March 9 is in pursuance to the previous one and has also introduced the concept of &#39;living will&#39; which is a document executed by an individual of a sound mental disposition, thereby, placing on record as to whether he/she would like to be placed on artificial medical support should the individual suffer from an incurable terminal ailment.

As a reference, worldwide, there are multiple recognised forms of euthanasia like passive/active euthanasia, assisted suicide etc but India has only permitted passive euthanasia. The basic difference is that, in active euthanasia, death of the patient is brought about by an action like administering an overdose of medicines whereas passive euthanasia involves an omission to provide any further medical support and letting the individual die in natural course.

Historically, various religions have also practised this form of euthanasia. For example, Jainism has the concept of Sallekhana which is primarily practiced by seers. In this, when they feel like putting an end to their worldly journey, they refuse the food, water or medications and, gradually, slip into eternal sleep. But this was not a legally recognised concept and had also led to controversies in recent years. But now, with the legal sanction, the concept of euthanasia has been accepted and can be professed by anyone who chooses the path.

While passing the judgement, Supreme Court was also conscious of the probable misuse of this provision and, as such, has introduced multiple layers of precautions in the form of guidelines so as to ensure that the provision is exercised in its letter and spirit. As stated above, there is no legislation in place on the subject and, hence, till that time, the guidelines issued by the apex court would act as guiding light. As a basic measure, the &#39;living will&#39; can be executed only by an individual of sound mind out of free will and volition. The living will has to be unambiguous in its intent and should clearly state the terms and conditions and circumstances of withdrawal. Further, the living will should specify the name of guardian or a close relative who, in the event of executor becoming completely indisposed, would be authorised to accord consent on behalf of the patient to withdraw the treatment.

In order to allay the fears of misuse, the Supreme Court has also provided for the clearance by the State before the living will is carried out. The living will is to be signed by the executor before two attesting witnesses and the same is to be countersigned by the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Both the Judicial Magistrate and the witnesses would record their satisfaction as to the free will of the executor while preserving one copy in his office and sending another to the record of the jurisdictional district court and to the competent officer of the local government.

The safeguards have also been provided at the medical platform like verifying the authenticity of the living will and forming of medical boards - one by hospital and another by the district collector - and, only after their clearance, can the process be proceeded with.

Undoubtedly, this is a welcome introduction by the Supreme Court and it is hoped that the provision is carried out in letter and spirit and ends the sufferings of those with no hopes. However, with the first step taken, a debate upon extending the sweep of the provision to cover active euthanasia as well is not far away in sight but that can only be after the provisions of passive euthanasia are successfully imbibed by the society.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Historically, various religions have also practised this form of euthanasia.

In a series of recent landmark judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on March, 9, 2018, added another feather to its cap when it put to rest the long-debated issue of euthanasia i.e. mercy killing. Indian society had, for long, considered the concept of mercy killing as a taboo and had prevented itself from opening up to the idea and, as such, the political dispensations had also been reluctant in promulgating the relevant legislations on the subject. However, the change came about with the case of Aruna Shanbaug which was decided by the Supreme Court in 2011, wherein, the apex court permitted passive euthanasia and issued strict guidelines for the same which included a clearance from the jurisdictional high court. The latest verdict of March 9 is in pursuance to the previous one and has also introduced the concept of 'living will' which is a document executed by an individual of a sound mental disposition, thereby, placing on record as to whether he/she would like to be placed on artificial medical support should the individual suffer from an incurable terminal ailment. As a reference, worldwide, there are multiple recognised forms of euthanasia like passive/active euthanasia, assisted suicide etc but India has only permitted passive euthanasia. The basic difference is that, in active euthanasia, death of the patient is brought about by an action like administering an overdose of medicines whereas passive euthanasia involves an omission to provide any further medical support and letting the individual die in natural course. Historically, various religions have also practised this form of euthanasia. For example, Jainism has the concept of Sallekhana which is primarily practiced by seers. In this, when they feel like putting an end to their worldly journey, they refuse the food, water or medications and, gradually, slip into eternal sleep. But this was not a legally recognised concept and had also led to controversies in recent years. But now, with the legal sanction, the concept of euthanasia has been accepted and can be professed by anyone who chooses the path. While passing the judgement, Supreme Court was also conscious of the probable misuse of this provision and, as such, has introduced multiple layers of precautions in the form of guidelines so as to ensure that the provision is exercised in its letter and spirit. As stated above, there is no legislation in place on the subject and, hence, till that time, the guidelines issued by the apex court would act as guiding light. As a basic measure, the 'living will' can be executed only by an individual of sound mind out of free will and volition. The living will has to be unambiguous in its intent and should clearly state the terms and conditions and circumstances of withdrawal. Further, the living will should specify the name of guardian or a close relative who, in the event of executor becoming completely indisposed, would be authorised to accord consent on behalf of the patient to withdraw the treatment. In order to allay the fears of misuse, the Supreme Court has also provided for the clearance by the State before the living will is carried out. The living will is to be signed by the executor before two attesting witnesses and the same is to be countersigned by the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Both the Judicial Magistrate and the witnesses would record their satisfaction as to the free will of the executor while preserving one copy in his office and sending another to the record of the jurisdictional district court and to the competent officer of the local government. The safeguards have also been provided at the medical platform like verifying the authenticity of the living will and forming of medical boards - one by hospital and another by the district collector - and, only after their clearance, can the process be proceeded with. Undoubtedly, this is a welcome introduction by the Supreme Court and it is hoped that the provision is carried out in letter and spirit and ends the sufferings of those with no hopes. However, with the first step taken, a debate upon extending the sweep of the provision to cover active euthanasia as well is not far away in sight but that can only be after the provisions of passive euthanasia are successfully imbibed by the society. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Passive euthanasia brings in a new wind of change

In its first, the Supreme Court approved passive euthanasia on Friday making it possible for terminally ill patients -- with no possibility of recovery -- to choose in advance whether or not they would want to be on artificial life support system or for how long.&nbsp;

The term &#39;euthanasia&#39; is loosely described to define the &#39;painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma&#39;.&nbsp;

India, for over a decade, had been debating whether or not patients suffering from incurable terminal disease be given the right to say no to life support systems.&nbsp;

While our country finally approves the protocol, we take a look at the legality of euthanasia in some of the countries across the globe.&nbsp;

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/know-the-difference-between-active-and-passive-euthanasia-35206">Know the difference between active and passive euthanasia</a>

United States&nbsp;

Euthanasia is not legal in the United States except from five states -- Washington DC, California, Colorado, Oregon and Vermont. These states allow assisted suicide which may involve a physician&#39;s assistance. Oregon was the first to approve assisted suicide in 1997.&nbsp;

Netherlands&nbsp;

In 2002, the country became the first in the world to legalise euthanasia including physician-assisted euthanasia. According to a stringent set of guidelines issued by the government, a patient can be euthanised only when suffering from irrecoverable illness, experiencing unbearable pain. The demand must be made in full consciousness by the patient.&nbsp;

Canada

The country legalised voluntary euthanasia in the year 2016 with an exception that only those who avail of Canada&#39;s health insurance facility can explore the option.&nbsp;

Belgium

The country was one of the firsts to legalise euthanasia. Belgium voted in favour of the protocol in May 2002 and extended the law to cover terminally ill children in December 2013 with a condition that the child must make a conscious request for euthanasia with a prior approval from the family and a certified medical team. The patient must be in great pain with no treatment to alleviate their illness.

South Korea

The country became one of the recent ones to vote in favour of active euthanasia. South Korea legalised the protocol in February 2018 describing it as a &quot;Well-Dying&quot; Bill.&nbsp;

Sweden

The Swedish government voted in favour of passive euthanasia in 2010. However, the administering of a lethal substance is still illegal in the country.

France&nbsp;

Euthanasia and assisted suicide in the country are against the law. However, President Fran&ccedil;ois Hollande has often spoken about the &quot;right to die with dignity&quot; but has never really expressed any intention to legalise the protocol.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/euthanasia-debate-key-terms-you-need-to-know-35209">Euthanasia debate - Key terms you need to know</a>​​​​​​​

Back in India, many lauded the judgment including those who had previously advocated that Aruna Shanbaug -- a terminally ill nurse who remained in a vegetative state for 45 years -- should be given the right to die with dignity.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra decided that passive euthanasia should be legalised.&nbsp;

&quot;The apex court, however, had previously observed that there should be adequate safeguards. Implementation of &#39;living will&#39; would be subject to medical board&#39;s certifying that the patient&#39;s comatose state is irreversible,&quot; PTI reported.&nbsp;

India, for over a decade, had been debating whether or not patients suffering from incurable terminal disease be given the right to say no to life support systems

In its first, the Supreme Court approved passive euthanasia on Friday making it possible for terminally ill patients -- with no possibility of recovery -- to choose in advance whether or not they would want to be on artificial life support system or for how long. The term 'euthanasia' is loosely described to define the 'painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma'. India, for over a decade, had been debating whether or not patients suffering from incurable terminal disease be given the right to say no to life support systems. While our country finally approves the protocol, we take a look at the legality of euthanasia in some of the countries across the globe. Also read: Know the difference between active and passive euthanasia United States Euthanasia is not legal in the United States except from five states -- Washington DC, California, Colorado, Oregon and Vermont. These states allow assisted suicide which may involve a physician's assistance. Oregon was the first to approve assisted suicide in 1997. Netherlands In 2002, the country became the first in the world to legalise euthanasia including physician-assisted euthanasia. According to a stringent set of guidelines issued by the government, a patient can be euthanised only when suffering from irrecoverable illness, experiencing unbearable pain. The demand must be made in full consciousness by the patient. Canada The country legalised voluntary euthanasia in the year 2016 with an exception that only those who avail of Canada's health insurance facility can explore the option. Belgium The country was one of the firsts to legalise euthanasia. Belgium voted in favour of the protocol in May 2002 and extended the law to cover terminally ill children in December 2013 with a condition that the child must make a conscious request for euthanasia with a prior approval from the family and a certified medical team. The patient must be in great pain with no treatment to alleviate their illness. South Korea The country became one of the recent ones to vote in favour of active euthanasia. South Korea legalised the protocol in February 2018 describing it as a "Well-Dying" Bill. Sweden The Swedish government voted in favour of passive euthanasia in 2010. However, the administering of a lethal substance is still illegal in the country. France Euthanasia and assisted suicide in the country are against the law. However, President François Hollande has often spoken about the "right to die with dignity" but has never really expressed any intention to legalise the protocol. Also read: Euthanasia debate - Key terms you need to know Back in India, many lauded the judgment including those who had previously advocated that Aruna Shanbaug -- a terminally ill nurse who remained in a vegetative state for 45 years -- should be given the right to die with dignity. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra decided that passive euthanasia should be legalised. "The apex court, however, had previously observed that there should be adequate safeguards. Implementation of 'living will' would be subject to medical board's certifying that the patient's comatose state is irreversible," PTI reported.

Factsheet: A look at legality of euthanasia across the globe

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court today approved passive euthanasia, recognising a terminally ill patient&#39;s right to &#39;die with dignity&#39;. With apex court&#39;s move, it gets important to throw light on other terms that most of us may come across in association with euthanasia.&nbsp;

The term &#39;euthanasia&#39; is loosely described to define the &#39;painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma&#39;. It further gets classified into active and passive euthanasia.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/94mKy2S1XNU" width="560"></iframe>

The former is where a &quot;deliberate action&quot; is taken to end a patient&#39;s life to save them from further suffering. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, is where a &quot;deliberate disconnection of life-support equipment&quot;, or cessation of any life-sustaining medical procedure is carried out. Passive euthanasia facilitates the natural death of a patient.&nbsp;

Besides these two terms, there are several others technical jargons associated with a person&#39;s life, health and necessitated demise, here&#39;s simplifying some of them:

1. Active voluntary and involuntary euthanasia

Both involve injecting the patient with a lethal, life-ending drug; the former involves patient&#39;s requests while the latter doesn&#39;t.&nbsp;

2. Persistent vegetative state

A state where a person is declared brain-damaged, suffers an irrecoverable state of coma and is offered a permanent life support. A person is often described as a &quot;vegetable&quot; when in a state of coma, which may get cured.

3. Palliative care

Wherein a person is not treated to get cured but to relieve the pain and other discomfort associated with the disease. A person on palliative care is terminally ill -- &nbsp;without any cure.&nbsp;

4. Terminal illness

A medical condition that cannot be treated.

5. Living will

A directive by a terminally ill person stating when to not connect or disconnect life-supporting equipment if the process delays the inevitable death making it more painful.

6. Mercy killing&nbsp;

Often interchangeably used for euthanasia but not limited to such cases. The act describes a request to end a life with a belief that it is the ultimate and the only compassionate choice.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

With apex court's move, it gets important to throw light on other terms that most of us may come across in association with euthanasia

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court today approved passive euthanasia, recognising a terminally ill patient's right to 'die with dignity'. With apex court's move, it gets important to throw light on other terms that most of us may come across in association with euthanasia. The term 'euthanasia' is loosely described to define the 'painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or an irreversible coma'. It further gets classified into active and passive euthanasia. The former is where a "deliberate action" is taken to end a patient's life to save them from further suffering. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, is where a "deliberate disconnection of life-support equipment", or cessation of any life-sustaining medical procedure is carried out. Passive euthanasia facilitates the natural death of a patient. Besides these two terms, there are several others technical jargons associated with a person's life, health and necessitated demise, here's simplifying some of them: 1. Active voluntary and involuntary euthanasia Both involve injecting the patient with a lethal, life-ending drug; the former involves patient's requests while the latter doesn't. 2. Persistent vegetative state A state where a person is declared brain-damaged, suffers an irrecoverable state of coma and is offered a permanent life support. A person is often described as a "vegetable" when in a state of coma, which may get cured. 3. Palliative care Wherein a person is not treated to get cured but to relieve the pain and other discomfort associated with the disease. A person on palliative care is terminally ill -- without any cure. 4. Terminal illness A medical condition that cannot be treated. 5. Living will A directive by a terminally ill person stating when to not connect or disconnect life-supporting equipment if the process delays the inevitable death making it more painful. 6. Mercy killing Often interchangeably used for euthanasia but not limited to such cases. The act describes a request to end a life with a belief that it is the ultimate and the only compassionate choice.

Euthanasia debate: Key terms you need to know

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra upheld that the &#39;fundamental right to life and dignity&#39; includes &#39;right to refuse treatment and die with dignity&#39;.

In three concurring opinions, the bench said the right to a dignified life extends up to the point of having a dignified death.

By allowing euthanasia and, at the same time, spelling out strict guidelines on how it is permissible, the apex court has walked a step further in recognizing the exact interpretation of &lsquo;right to live with human dignity&rsquo; mentioned in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.&nbsp;

However, for some, legalising euthanasia would mean to send a message to those contemplating suicide that life was not important.

So, what is it? Murder or mercy killing?

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/preview/article/35226" target="_blank">Euthanasia and Aruna Shanbaug: The case that started it all</a>

In several other countries, the fundamental right to a meaningful existence also includes a person&#39;s choice to die without suffering.

A person can choose not to remain in a vegetative state on a life support system if a person goes into a state when it will not be possible to express their wishes.&nbsp;

A term which originated from the case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug, who had been lying in a PVS in the KEM hospital Mumbai for 42 years.&nbsp;

But many may take up the advanced directive owing to the other environmental or community pressure, which is definitely not a suffering.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Therefore, it becomes important to differentiate and clearly understand what the SC meant by Euthanasia.

Passive euthanasia involves withholding or discontinuing treatment for a terminally ill person whereas active euthanasia involves injecting a lethal dose to a terminally ill person.&nbsp;

And active euthanasia is banned in India.

The outcome of the Passive euthanasia is a progressive and humane verdict that lays down a broad legal framework for protecting the dignity of a terminally ill patient or one in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with no hope of cure or recovery.&nbsp;

In other words, it is about accelerating the process of death for reducing the period of suffering of a terminally ill person, who has no chance of practical recovery.&nbsp; &nbsp;

What is the point of burdening a dying patient with life-prolonging treatment and equipment just because medical technology has advanced?&nbsp;

Doing so would be destructive of his or her dignity.

And therefore in such a situation, individual interest has to be given priority over the state interest.

And this is exactly what Supreme Court allowed.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

The SC said the right to a dignified life extends up to the point of having a dignified death

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra upheld that the 'fundamental right to life and dignity' includes 'right to refuse treatment and die with dignity'. In three concurring opinions, the bench said the right to a dignified life extends up to the point of having a dignified death. By allowing euthanasia and, at the same time, spelling out strict guidelines on how it is permissible, the apex court has walked a step further in recognizing the exact interpretation of ‘right to live with human dignity’ mentioned in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, for some, legalising euthanasia would mean to send a message to those contemplating suicide that life was not important. So, what is it? Murder or mercy killing? Also read: Euthanasia and Aruna Shanbaug: The case that started it all In several other countries, the fundamental right to a meaningful existence also includes a person's choice to die without suffering. A person can choose not to remain in a vegetative state on a life support system if a person goes into a state when it will not be possible to express their wishes. A term which originated from the case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug, who had been lying in a PVS in the KEM hospital Mumbai for 42 years. But many may take up the advanced directive owing to the other environmental or community pressure, which is definitely not a suffering. Therefore, it becomes important to differentiate and clearly understand what the SC meant by Euthanasia. Passive euthanasia involves withholding or discontinuing treatment for a terminally ill person whereas active euthanasia involves injecting a lethal dose to a terminally ill person. And active euthanasia is banned in India. The outcome of the Passive euthanasia is a progressive and humane verdict that lays down a broad legal framework for protecting the dignity of a terminally ill patient or one in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with no hope of cure or recovery. In other words, it is about accelerating the process of death for reducing the period of suffering of a terminally ill person, who has no chance of practical recovery. What is the point of burdening a dying patient with life-prolonging treatment and equipment just because medical technology has advanced? Doing so would be destructive of his or her dignity. And therefore in such a situation, individual interest has to be given priority over the state interest. And this is exactly what Supreme Court allowed. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Euthanasia - dignified death to a dignified life

A Mumbai-based elderly couple have made a heart-wrenching plea to President Ram Nath Kovind seeking permission for active euthanasia or &ldquo;assisted suicide&rdquo; as they feel they are of no use to society or themselves.

Narayan Lavate (88) and his wife Iravati (78), who have no children and say their siblings are also no more, are of the view that keeping them alive against their wishes is a &ldquo;waste of the country&rsquo;s scarce resources as well as theirs&rdquo;.

The couple, residing at Charni Road in South Mumbai, has sought the President&rsquo;s intervention as they feel it is unfair to compel them to wait to die till they are afflicted by any serious ailment and to make theirs as an exceptional case of &ldquo;active euthanasia&rdquo;.

&ldquo;The President has the powers for showing mercy to those on death row. We are serving a life imprisonment and the President can show us mercy by allowing us to end our lives,&rdquo; Mr. Lavate, who retired from the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) in 1989, told PTI.

He said if he and his wife, a retired school principal, decided to commit suicide by jumping from a terrace or hanging themselves, there was no guarantee they would die.

&ldquo;In Switzerland, there is an organisation called Dignitas for those who wish to end their lives. Qualified doctors who assist them in the process are not charged for abetment to suicide. We became members of the organisation but cannot go there since I don&rsquo;t have a passport,&rdquo; Mr Lavate said. &ldquo;Our aim of writing to the President is to make us an exceptional case for active euthanasia.&rdquo;

In his petition dated December 21, 2017, Mr Lavate said he and his wife were in a reasonably good health and not suffering from any serious ailment.

&ldquo;We have already committed to donating our bodies after death and whatever little wealth we have, to the State Treasury ,&rdquo; he said.

Narayan Lavate (88) and his wife Iravati (78), who have no children and say their siblings are also no more, are of the view that keeping them alive against their wishes is a 'waste of the country’s scarce resources as well as theirs'

A Mumbai-based elderly couple have made a heart-wrenching plea to President Ram Nath Kovind seeking permission for active euthanasia or “assisted suicide” as they feel they are of no use to society or themselves. Narayan Lavate (88) and his wife Iravati (78), who have no children and say their siblings are also no more, are of the view that keeping them alive against their wishes is a “waste of the country’s scarce resources as well as theirs”. The couple, residing at Charni Road in South Mumbai, has sought the President’s intervention as they feel it is unfair to compel them to wait to die till they are afflicted by any serious ailment and to make theirs as an exceptional case of “active euthanasia”. “The President has the powers for showing mercy to those on death row. We are serving a life imprisonment and the President can show us mercy by allowing us to end our lives,” Mr. Lavate, who retired from the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) in 1989, told PTI. He said if he and his wife, a retired school principal, decided to commit suicide by jumping from a terrace or hanging themselves, there was no guarantee they would die. “In Switzerland, there is an organisation called Dignitas for those who wish to end their lives. Qualified doctors who assist them in the process are not charged for abetment to suicide. We became members of the organisation but cannot go there since I don’t have a passport,” Mr Lavate said. “Our aim of writing to the President is to make us an exceptional case for active euthanasia.” In his petition dated December 21, 2017, Mr Lavate said he and his wife were in a reasonably good health and not suffering from any serious ailment. “We have already committed to donating our bodies after death and whatever little wealth we have, to the State Treasury ,” he said.

Elderly Mumbai couple ask to end lives, say they are 'waste of country's scarce resources'

Aruna Shanbaug a victim of sexual assault remained in a vegetative state for&nbsp;about 42 years.&nbsp;

While working as a nurse in a hospital at Mumbai, Aruna was attacked by a ward boy, Sohanlal Bhartha Walmiki in 1973.

Following the incident, she remained in a vegetative state until her death in 2015.&nbsp;

A plea was filed in the Supreme Court by journalist Pinki Virani seeking an euthanasia for her.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The apex court had sought for the medical report of Shanbaug on December 17, 2010.&nbsp;

The court on January 24, 2011, responded to the plea filed by the journalist by setting up a medical panel to examine her.&nbsp;

In March 2011, the apex court legalised passive euthanasia in India.

According to the judgement, the decision to withdraw treatment, nutrition or water establish that the decision to discontinue the life support be taken by parents, spouse or other close relatives or in the absence of them by a &quot;next close friend&quot;. This decision further requires the approval of the High Court.&nbsp;

Aruna Shanbaug was, however, restrained from receiving passive euthanasia as the KEM Hospital where she worked as a nurse and where she was getting her treatment wished that she be allowed to live.&nbsp;

The court declined to consider Journalist friend Pinky Virani, who had filed the petition on behalf of Aruna, as the next friend and instead treated the KEM Hospital staff as the next friend.&nbsp;

She finally&nbsp;died of pneumonia in 2015.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

While working as a nurse in a hospital at Mumbai, Aruna was attacked by a ward boy, Sohanlal Bhartha Walmiki in 1973, following which she remained in a vegetative state for the next 42 years until her death in 2015

Aruna Shanbaug a victim of sexual assault remained in a vegetative state for about 42 years. While working as a nurse in a hospital at Mumbai, Aruna was attacked by a ward boy, Sohanlal Bhartha Walmiki in 1973. Following the incident, she remained in a vegetative state until her death in 2015. A plea was filed in the Supreme Court by journalist Pinki Virani seeking an euthanasia for her. The apex court had sought for the medical report of Shanbaug on December 17, 2010. The court on January 24, 2011, responded to the plea filed by the journalist by setting up a medical panel to examine her. In March 2011, the apex court legalised passive euthanasia in India. According to the judgement, the decision to withdraw treatment, nutrition or water establish that the decision to discontinue the life support be taken by parents, spouse or other close relatives or in the absence of them by a "next close friend". This decision further requires the approval of the High Court. Aruna Shanbaug was, however, restrained from receiving passive euthanasia as the KEM Hospital where she worked as a nurse and where she was getting her treatment wished that she be allowed to live. The court declined to consider Journalist friend Pinky Virani, who had filed the petition on behalf of Aruna, as the next friend and instead treated the KEM Hospital staff as the next friend. She finally died of pneumonia in 2015.

Euthanasia and Aruna Shanbaug: The case that started it all

The Supreme Court on Friday gave a landmark judgment by approving passive euthanasia --&nbsp;recognising terminally ill patient to &#39;die with dignity&#39;.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-approves-passive-euthanasia-35189">Supreme Court approves passive euthanasia, </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-approves-passive-euthanasia-35189">recognises</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-approves-passive-euthanasia-35189"> &#39;right to die with dignity&#39;</a>

The term passive euthanasia is used by the Supreme Court of India which basically means withdrawal of artificial medical support system to patients. It is only available to patients who are terminally ill and are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement.

There are two types Euthanasia -- active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.

Also read: &nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/euthanasia-debate-35209">Key terms Euthanasia debate you need to know</a>

What&#39;s the difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia

Active euthanasia occurs when doctors deliberately do something on humanitarian grounds like injecting a substance in the patient&#39;s body&nbsp;that causes the patient&#39;s death while passive euthanasia is when doctors stop doing something to keep the patient alive like switching off life-support machines or disconnecting feeding tubes.

In passive euthanasia what doctors do is that they&nbsp;alter life support system and let nature take its course.

Another main difference between active and passive euthanasia is the moral debate that surrounds the killing of the patients. Many thinkers consider active euthanasia an immoral practice and consider it to be an equivalent to murdering a person because doctors in a way are assisting&nbsp;the patient to commit suicide.

Active Euthanasia is legal in a handful of countries like Canada, Switzerland etc&nbsp;in comparison to passive euthanasia which is legal in many countries with limitation to specific circumstances and the approval of councillors and doctors or specialists.

There is further sub-categorization of active and passive euthanasia which is voluntarily and involuntarily.

Involuntarily euthanasia is when the consent is directly taken from the patient whereas involuntarily euthanasia is when the patient is unable to give consent for example if the patient is in coma or the patient is a very young baby or the patient is not in an age of making the decision for himself.

There are countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg where active euthanasia is banned but voluntary-active euthanasia is legal.

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Friday gave a landmark judgment by approving passive euthanasia, recognising terminally ill patient to 'die with dignity'

The Supreme Court on Friday gave a landmark judgment by approving passive euthanasia -- recognising terminally ill patient to 'die with dignity'. Also read: Supreme Court approves passive euthanasia, recognises 'right to die with dignity' The term passive euthanasia is used by the Supreme Court of India which basically means withdrawal of artificial medical support system to patients. It is only available to patients who are terminally ill and are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement. There are two types Euthanasia -- active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Also read: Key terms Euthanasia debate you need to know What's the difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia Active euthanasia occurs when doctors deliberately do something on humanitarian grounds like injecting a substance in the patient's body that causes the patient's death while passive euthanasia is when doctors stop doing something to keep the patient alive like switching off life-support machines or disconnecting feeding tubes. In passive euthanasia what doctors do is that they alter life support system and let nature take its course. Another main difference between active and passive euthanasia is the moral debate that surrounds the killing of the patients. Many thinkers consider active euthanasia an immoral practice and consider it to be an equivalent to murdering a person because doctors in a way are assisting the patient to commit suicide. Active Euthanasia is legal in a handful of countries like Canada, Switzerland etc in comparison to passive euthanasia which is legal in many countries with limitation to specific circumstances and the approval of councillors and doctors or specialists. There is further sub-categorization of active and passive euthanasia which is voluntarily and involuntarily. Involuntarily euthanasia is when the consent is directly taken from the patient whereas involuntarily euthanasia is when the patient is unable to give consent for example if the patient is in coma or the patient is a very young baby or the patient is not in an age of making the decision for himself. There are countries like Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg where active euthanasia is banned but voluntary-active euthanasia is legal.

Know the difference between active and passive euthanasia!

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/with-quote-from-hindi-film-song-supreme-court-allows-passive-euthanasia-35235" target="_blank">With </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/with-quote-from-hindi-film-song-supreme-court-allows-passive-euthanasia-35235" target="_blank">quote</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/with-quote-from-hindi-film-song-supreme-court-allows-passive-euthanasia-35235" target="_blank"> from Hindi film song, Supreme Court allows passive euthanasia</a>

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-approves-passive-euthanasia-35189" target="_blank">recognised the right to passive euthanasia</a>for the terminally ill.&nbsp; The decision was taken by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-passes-bill-giving-death-penalty-to-rapists-of-girls-below-12-years-35231" target="_blank">Rajasthan passes </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-passes-bill-giving-death-penalty-to-rapists-of-girls-below-12-years-35231" target="_blank">bill</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-passes-bill-giving-death-penalty-to-rapists-of-girls-below-12-years-35231" target="_blank"> providing for </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-passes-bill-giving-death-penalty-to-rapists-of-girls-below-12-years-35231" target="_blank">death</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajasthan-passes-bill-giving-death-penalty-to-rapists-of-girls-below-12-years-35231" target="_blank"> penalty to rapists of girls under 12</a>

Rajasthan home minister GC Kataria said the government had made two amendments in the case -- adding life sentence and life imprisonment for convicts in offences against girls below 12 years of age and making a provision that a convict can&#39;t leave prison for life even after completing 14 years in jail.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/parag-agrawal-iit-alumnus-is-twitters-new-cto-35224" target="_blank">Parag Agrawal, </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/parag-agrawal-iit-alumnus-is-twitters-new-cto-35224" target="_blank">IIT</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/parag-agrawal-iit-alumnus-is-twitters-new-cto-35224" target="_blank"> alumnus, is Twitter&#39;s new CTO</a>

Microblogging platform Twitter has appointed &nbsp;IIT-Bombay alumnus Parag Agrawal as its chief technology officer (CTO), an update on the company&#39;s website said.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-surprised-at-north-koreas-offer-of-talks-rex-tillerson-35238" target="_blank">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-surprised-at-north-koreas-offer-of-talks-rex-tillerson-35238" target="_blank">&nbsp;surprised at North Korea&#39;s offer of talks: Rex Tillerson</a>

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday said Washington had been surprised by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un&#39;s willingness to hold direct talks with the US on the nuclear standoff in the Korean peninsula.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pak-govt-making-efforts-to-mainstream-hafiz-saeed-and-his-system-mea-raveesh-kumar-35239" target="_blank">Pak govt making efforts to mainstream Hafiz Saeed and his system: India&#39;s MEA</a>

The Ministry of External Affairs, Raveesh Kumar has said that Pakistan is trying to make efforts to mainstream Hafiz Saeed and his system as a political party.

With quote from Hindi film song, Supreme Court allows passive euthanasia The Indian Supreme Court on Friday recognised the right to passive euthanasiafor the terminally ill. The decision was taken by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Rajasthan passes bill providing for death penalty to rapists of girls under 12 Rajasthan home minister GC Kataria said the government had made two amendments in the case -- adding life sentence and life imprisonment for convicts in offences against girls below 12 years of age and making a provision that a convict can't leave prison for life even after completing 14 years in jail. Parag Agrawal, IIT alumnus, is Twitter's new CTO Microblogging platform Twitter has appointed IIT-Bombay alumnus Parag Agrawal as its chief technology officer (CTO), an update on the company's website said. US surprised at North Korea's offer of talks: Rex Tillerson Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Friday said Washington had been surprised by North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's willingness to hold direct talks with the US on the nuclear standoff in the Korean peninsula. Pak govt making efforts to mainstream Hafiz Saeed and his system: India's MEA The Ministry of External Affairs, Raveesh Kumar has said that Pakistan is trying to make efforts to mainstream Hafiz Saeed and his system as a political party.

WION Evening News brief, March 9, 2018

Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on &quot;living will&quot; in cases of passive euthanasia.

The government had opposed granting recognition to &quot;living will&quot; in cases of passive euthanasia.&nbsp;

A &quot;living will&quot;&nbsp;is when a patient gives consent that allows withdrawal of life support systems if the individual has no chance of survival.

The concept is followed in the US, UK, Germany and Netherlands.&nbsp;However, the Indian government said the &quot;living will&quot; could be misused and may not be viable as a public policy.

The petitioner had argued before the Supreme Court that &quot;Right to die peacefully&quot; is part of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution

&quot;We have been following the guidelines laid down by this court in Aruna Shanbaug&#39;s case and a medical board is the final authority to decide on passive euthanasia, not the living will created by a person,&quot; Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha, appearing for the Centre, said.

He said if &quot;living will&quot; is created by a person and is recognised, then there are possibilities of it being misused and this would not be viable as public policy.

&quot;If a person is not of sound mind, then he is a not a competent person to make a living will and in that case, it is a medical board which will have to look into the affairs and not the individual. Safeguards have to be there and nothing more could be done,&quot; he asserted.

In 2014, the Supreme Court&nbsp;had referred the petition to a five-judge constitution bench which sought to recognise the execution of a &#39;living will&#39; of persons suffering from chronic terminal diseases and likely to go into a permanent vegetative state.

On January, 15, 2016, the Centre had told the court about the 241st report of the Law Commission which stated that passive euthanasia should be allowed with certain safeguards and there was also a proposed law --Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill, 2006.

The Indian government said the "living will" could be misused and may not be viable as a public policy.

Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on "living will" in cases of passive euthanasia. The government had opposed granting recognition to "living will" in cases of passive euthanasia. A "living will" is when a patient gives consent that allows withdrawal of life support systems if the individual has no chance of survival. The concept is followed in the US, UK, Germany and Netherlands. However, the Indian government said the "living will" could be misused and may not be viable as a public policy. The petitioner had argued before the Supreme Court that "Right to die peacefully" is part of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution "We have been following the guidelines laid down by this court in Aruna Shanbaug's case and a medical board is the final authority to decide on passive euthanasia, not the living will created by a person," Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha, appearing for the Centre, said. He said if "living will" is created by a person and is recognised, then there are possibilities of it being misused and this would not be viable as public policy. "If a person is not of sound mind, then he is a not a competent person to make a living will and in that case, it is a medical board which will have to look into the affairs and not the individual. Safeguards have to be there and nothing more could be done," he asserted. In 2014, the Supreme Court had referred the petition to a five-judge constitution bench which sought to recognise the execution of a 'living will' of persons suffering from chronic terminal diseases and likely to go into a permanent vegetative state. On January, 15, 2016, the Centre had told the court about the 241st report of the Law Commission which stated that passive euthanasia should be allowed with certain safeguards and there was also a proposed law --Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners) Bill, 2006.

'Living will' can be misused: Government on passive euthanasia in Supreme Court

A 17-year-old was euthanised in Belgium, the first minor to do so after the country lifted age restrictions on mercy killings. 
 
The new rules adopted in 2014 allow euthanasia for people of all ages.&nbsp; 
 
The head of the national committee for euthanasia, Wim Distelmans, said a local doctor had reported the case to his committee last week.&nbsp; 
 
He gave no details of the minor beyond saying it was an exceptional case of a child with a terminal illness. 
 
&quot;Fortunately, there are very few children who are considered (for euthanasia) but that does not mean we should refuse them the right to a dignified death,&quot; Wim Distelmans said. 
 
Belgian Senator Jean-Jacques De Gucht advocated in favour of mercy killings and said the teenagers had a right to make a considered choice. 
 
&quot;You cannot compare an adolescent that isn&#39;t being confronted with illness with a young person who is staring at death in its very eyes. So, you have 14-15 years-olds very well aware of the situation they&#39;re in and I think it&#39;s very important that we, as a society, have given the opportunity to those people to decide for themselves in what manner they want to cope with that situation,&quot; he said. 
 
Belgium is the only country in the world that allows euthanasia on terminally-ill children of any age. It gives the minors the right to end their suffering, only if they are conscious and capable of rational decisions. 
 
The Netherlands also allows mercy killings for children, but only for those aged over 12. Luxembourg approved euthanasia but for adults only in 2009. 
 
The mercy killing law in Belgium was amended after a long debate. To undergo euthanasia, the law says a minor must also be in a &quot;terminal medical situation with constant and unbearable physical pain which cannot be assuaged and that will cause death in the short-term.&quot; 
 
The law requires the request to be made by the minor, which would be reviewed by a team of doctors and an independent psychiatrist or psychologist&nbsp;and have parental consent. 
 
But the Belgian legislators had decided not to include psychological suffering in the list of factors determining whether euthanasia may be allowed for minors, though it is admissable for adults. 
 
Since Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002, the number of patients being euthanised rose nearly eight-fold to a total number of 8,752 cases, as per data from the national euthanasia control committee. 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies) 
 
&nbsp;

The country lifted age restrictions on mercy killings in 2014

A 17-year-old was euthanised in Belgium, the first minor to do so after the country lifted age restrictions on mercy killings. The new rules adopted in 2014 allow euthanasia for people of all ages. The head of the national committee for euthanasia, Wim Distelmans, said a local doctor had reported the case to his committee last week. He gave no details of the minor beyond saying it was an exceptional case of a child with a terminal illness. "Fortunately, there are very few children who are considered (for euthanasia) but that does not mean we should refuse them the right to a dignified death," Wim Distelmans said. Belgian Senator Jean-Jacques De Gucht advocated in favour of mercy killings and said the teenagers had a right to make a considered choice. "You cannot compare an adolescent that isn't being confronted with illness with a young person who is staring at death in its very eyes. So, you have 14-15 years-olds very well aware of the situation they're in and I think it's very important that we, as a society, have given the opportunity to those people to decide for themselves in what manner they want to cope with that situation," he said. Belgium is the only country in the world that allows euthanasia on terminally-ill children of any age. It gives the minors the right to end their suffering, only if they are conscious and capable of rational decisions. The Netherlands also allows mercy killings for children, but only for those aged over 12. Luxembourg approved euthanasia but for adults only in 2009. The mercy killing law in Belgium was amended after a long debate. To undergo euthanasia, the law says a minor must also be in a "terminal medical situation with constant and unbearable physical pain which cannot be assuaged and that will cause death in the short-term." The law requires the request to be made by the minor, which would be reviewed by a team of doctors and an independent psychiatrist or psychologist and have parental consent. But the Belgian legislators had decided not to include psychological suffering in the list of factors determining whether euthanasia may be allowed for minors, though it is admissable for adults. Since Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002, the number of patients being euthanised rose nearly eight-fold to a total number of 8,752 cases, as per data from the national euthanasia control committee. (WION with inputs from agencies)

First minor euthanised in Belgium

Belgian Paralympian Marieke Vervoort has said she will not be choosing euthanasia yet. 
 
Belgian local media reported last week that Vervoort was considering euthanasia after Rio Games, but the Paralympian has denied the reports. 
 
The 37-year-old, who suffers from a degenerative spinal condition, signed euthanasia papers in 2008 in Belgium. 
 
Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002. Signing the papers does not mean that a patient has to end their life immediately. 
 
&quot;I have my (euthanasia) papers in my hand, but I&#39;m still enjoying every little moment,&quot; Vervoort told reporters.&nbsp;She won a silver medal in the 400 metres wheelchair race on Saturday in Rio. She &nbsp;said the time for euthanasia will come when she has &quot;more bad days than good days but the time is not there yet&quot;. 
 
Vervoort was diagnosed with the degenerative condition when she was a teenager. 
 
She won a Paralympic gold in 100m and silver in 200m sprints in 2012 London Games. 
 
The athlete has said that Rio Games is her last competition. 
 
She hopes other countries will consider euthanasia. &quot;It makes people live longer. It doesn&#39;t mean that when people sign the papers, they have to die two weeks later. I signed my papers in 2008. Look now, 2016 and I won the silver medal. Now my fear of death is gone. Assisted death is something like they operate on you, you go to sleep and never wake. It feels like it will be peaceful. I don&#39;t want to suffer when I die.&quot; 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies)

The 37-year-old signed euthanasia papers in 2008 but said she is 'still enjoying every little moment'

Belgian Paralympian Marieke Vervoort has said she will not be choosing euthanasia yet. Belgian local media reported last week that Vervoort was considering euthanasia after Rio Games, but the Paralympian has denied the reports. The 37-year-old, who suffers from a degenerative spinal condition, signed euthanasia papers in 2008 in Belgium. Belgium legalised euthanasia in 2002. Signing the papers does not mean that a patient has to end their life immediately. "I have my (euthanasia) papers in my hand, but I'm still enjoying every little moment," Vervoort told reporters. She won a silver medal in the 400 metres wheelchair race on Saturday in Rio. She said the time for euthanasia will come when she has "more bad days than good days but the time is not there yet". Vervoort was diagnosed with the degenerative condition when she was a teenager. She won a Paralympic gold in 100m and silver in 200m sprints in 2012 London Games. The athlete has said that Rio Games is her last competition. She hopes other countries will consider euthanasia. "It makes people live longer. It doesn't mean that when people sign the papers, they have to die two weeks later. I signed my papers in 2008. Look now, 2016 and I won the silver medal. Now my fear of death is gone. Assisted death is something like they operate on you, you go to sleep and never wake. It feels like it will be peaceful. I don't want to suffer when I die." (WION with inputs from agencies)

Belgian Paralympian Vervoort says not ready for euthanasia yet

euthanasia

Euthanasia, News on Euthanasia, stories on Euthanasia, articles on Euthanasia, Euthanasia stories at Wion, Euthanasia news, Euthanasia latest news