Losing a loved one is one of the most difficult life experiences most of us are cursed to bear. In the United Kingdom, a physically healthy mother who buried her son four years ago has chosen to 'Die With A Smile' at an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland to escape the pain. 56-year-old Wendy Duffy was forced to choose Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, as a hotly debated right-to-die bill has remained stalled in the UK parliament for the last year. This is her story.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/-weird-stuff-happens-us-navy-sailor-headed-to-strait-of-hormuz-for-trump-s-minesweeping-mission-attacked-by-monkey-1777009414675">'Weird stuff happens': Monkey temporarily derails Trump's 'shoot and kill' mission in Strait of Hormuz</a><h2>Who is Wendy Duffy?</h2>Wendy Duffy, 56, lost her son to a freak choking incident four years ago. Her son, Marcus, died at the age of 23 after choking on a tomato that got lodged in his windpipe while he was sleeping. Following his death, Wendy tried to commit suicide by overdosing, but ended up on a ventilator for two weeks.She says that ultimately no amount of medication or therapy could help make her feel whole again and that she "can't wait" to die. According to the New York Post, this time she wants her death to be "neater"."I could step off a motorway bridge or a tower block, but that would leave anyone finding me dealing with that for the rest of their lives," she said.Also read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/-profiting-off-righteous-operation-how-an-army-soldier-used-secret-war-plans-about-maduro-s-capture-to-make-400-000-on-polymarket-1776993168140">'Profiting off righteous operation': How an army soldier used secret war plans about Maduro's capture to make $400,000 on Polymarket</a><h2>'Die With A Smile': How much did Wendy Duffy pay for dying?</h2>Wendy's application for euthanasia was accepted by Pegasos, a Swiss assisted-dying nonprofit organisation. She will pay $13,500 to euthanise herself under its care.The grieving mother revealed that she has already decided what she will wear to her deathbed. Talking to Daily Mail, she revealed that Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars’ "Die With A Smile" will be playing as she passes on. She acknowledged that it will be difficult to bid goodbye to her siblings, four sisters and two brothers. But, she said that she will call them when she gets to Switzerland. "It will be a hard call where I’ll say goodbye and thank them. But they will get it. They know. Honestly, 100%, they know that I’m not happy, that I don’t want to be here," she said.<h2>Blast from the past?</h2>Wendy's decision to die despite being healthy has brought back memories of Noella Castillo, a healthy 5-year-old sexual gang rape victim. Castillo's death by assisted suicide in Spain last month had sparked an international uproar, with the Donald trump administration ordering the US Embassy in Madrid to open an investigation into Spanish law enforcement's handling of the brutal sexual assault against her.&nbsp;If you or someone you know wants help for mental well being, don't hesitate to talk to a professional. Aasra (Mumbai) 022-27546669, 98204 66726, Sneha (Chennai) 044-24640050, Sumaitri (Delhi) 011-23389090, Cooj (Goa) 0832- 2252525, Jeevan (Jamshedpur) 065-76453841, Pratheeksha (Kochi) 048-42448830, Maithri (Kochi) 0484-2540530, Roshni (Hyderabad) 040-66202000, Lifeline 033-64643267 (Kolkata), Parivarthan (Bangalore) +91 76766 02602WION is not associated with any of these organisations and does not make any recommendations

Wendy Duffy, a 56-year-old mother from the UK, has chosen to undergo euthanasia. Here’s the part that makes this case so controversial: she is not terminally ill. Why is she choosing to die by suicide? All you need to know.

Losing a loved one is one of the most difficult life experiences most of us are cursed to bear. In the United Kingdom, a physically healthy mother who buried her son four years ago has chosen to 'Die With A Smile' at an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland to escape the pain. 56-year-old Wendy Duffy was forced to choose Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, as a hotly debated right-to-die bill has remained stalled in the UK parliament for the last year. This is her story. Also read | 'Weird stuff happens': Monkey temporarily derails Trump's 'shoot and kill' mission in Strait of Hormuz Who is Wendy Duffy? Wendy Duffy, 56, lost her son to a freak choking incident four years ago. Her son, Marcus, died at the age of 23 after choking on a tomato that got lodged in his windpipe while he was sleeping. Following his death, Wendy tried to commit suicide by overdosing, but ended up on a ventilator for two weeks. She says that ultimately no amount of medication or therapy could help make her feel whole again and that she "can't wait" to die. According to the New York Post, this time she wants her death to be "neater". "I could step off a motorway bridge or a tower block, but that would leave anyone finding me dealing with that for the rest of their lives," she said. Also read | 'Profiting off righteous operation': How an army soldier used secret war plans about Maduro's capture to make $400,000 on Polymarket 'Die With A Smile': How much did Wendy Duffy pay for dying? Wendy's application for euthanasia was accepted by Pegasos, a Swiss assisted-dying nonprofit organisation. She will pay $13,500 to euthanise herself under its care. The grieving mother revealed that she has already decided what she will wear to her deathbed. Talking to Daily Mail, she revealed that Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars’ "Die With A Smile" will be playing as she passes on. She acknowledged that it will be difficult to bid goodbye to her siblings, four sisters and two brothers. But, she said that she will call them when she gets to Switzerland. "It will be a hard call where I’ll say goodbye and thank them. But they will get it. They know. Honestly, 100%, they know that I’m not happy, that I don’t want to be here," she said. Blast from the past? Wendy's decision to die despite being healthy has brought back memories of Noella Castillo, a healthy 5-year-old sexual gang rape victim. Castillo's death by assisted suicide in Spain last month had sparked an international uproar, with the Donald trump administration ordering the US Embassy in Madrid to open an investigation into Spanish law enforcement's handling of the brutal sexual assault against her. If you or someone you know wants help for mental well being, don't hesitate to talk to a professional. Aasra (Mumbai) 022-27546669, 98204 66726, Sneha (Chennai) 044-24640050, Sumaitri (Delhi) 011-23389090, Cooj (Goa) 0832- 2252525, Jeevan (Jamshedpur) 065-76453841, Pratheeksha (Kochi) 048-42448830, Maithri (Kochi) 0484-2540530, Roshni (Hyderabad) 040-66202000, Lifeline 033-64643267 (Kolkata), Parivarthan (Bangalore) +91 76766 02602 WION is not associated with any of these organisations and does not make any recommendations

Wendy Duffy, a 56-year-old mother from the UK, has chosen to undergo euthanasia. Here’s the part that makes this case so controversial: she is not terminally ill. Why is she choosing to die by suicide? All you need to know.

'Die with a smile': Healthy UK mother chooses assisted suicide due to THIS heartbreaking reason

In a landmark decision, India’s top court has allowed passive euthanasia for a 32-year-old man who has remained in a permanent vegetative state for the past 13 years after a fall. The ruling permits doctors to withdraw life support, recognising the constitutional right to die with dignity in exceptional circumstances.

The court noted that the man’s condition is medically irreversible and that continuing life support would not improve his health. The decision came after a detailed medical evaluation and consent from the family, marking one of the rare cases where withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment has been legally permitted.

India: Top Court Allows Passive Euthanasia For Man In Vegetative State

The Union Health Ministry's draft guidelines on passive euthanasia suggest doctors should make considered decisions on withdrawing life support for terminally ill patients based on specific conditions. Watch in for more details!

India: Health Ministry Releases New Guidelines on Passive Euthanasia

Canada has opted to continue to exclude those suffering from mental health problems from voluntarily opting for death. &nbsp;

On Monday (Jan 29), the Canadian government announced that individuals suffering solely from mental illness will continue to be excluded from pursuing assisted death.&nbsp;

This decision, as per Reuters, comes after a parliamentary committee determined that the country's healthcare system is not yet prepared for such an inclusion.&nbsp;

<h2>More time needed</h2>

Speaking to reporters, Health Minister Mark Holland stated that the government will soon introduce legislation outlining details such as the duration of this exclusion.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/scathing-report-accuses-trump-administration-of-controlled-substance-violations-in-white-house-684984">Scathing report accuses Trump administration of controlled substance violations in White House</a>

"We agree with the joint committee's conclusion that more time is required, and we'll be in a position in the coming days to talk about how much time we believe is required," he told reporters in Ottawa.

<h2>Canada and assisted death</h2>

Canada legalised assisted death in 2016 for individuals with a terminal illness. In 2021, it expanded the eligibility to include people with incurable but not necessarily terminal conditions.&nbsp;

However, legislation&nbsp;to temporarily exclude those whose only underlying condition is a mental illness was passed. This exclusion, which has already been extended by one year, is set to expire on March 17.

"We need more time," said Health Minister Mark Holland, adding that the March timeline was not a barrier, but that the government needs to move fast to extend the exclusion once more.

Holland explained that more time is needed for training individuals on the established guidelines, as provinces and territories have indicated that their systems are not yet ready.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missing-indian-student-of-purdue-university-found-dead-on-the-campus-684949">Missing Indian student of Purdue University found dead on campus</a>

"Although the curriculum is present, although the guidelines are set, there has not been enough time for people to be trained on them, and provinces and territories are saying their systems are not ready and need more time," he said.

Proponents of assisted death argue that it is a matter of personal autonomy, while some psychiatrists express concerns about determining whether a mental illness is truly "irremediable".

Opposition parties in Canada have advocated for an indefinite pause on including mental illness cases under Canada's medical assistance in dying (MAID) law, asserting that the healthcare system was unprepared for such an expansion.&nbsp;

If the exclusion were lifted, Canada would become one of only six countries where a person suffering solely from mental illness, and not near natural death, could seek assistance in dying from a doctor.

(With inputs from agencies)

Canada has opted to continue to exclude those suffering from mental health problems from voluntarily opting for death. On Monday (Jan 29), the Canadian government announced that individuals suffering solely from mental illness will continue to be excluded from pursuing assisted death.

Canada has opted to continue to exclude those suffering from mental health problems from voluntarily opting for death. On Monday (Jan 29), the Canadian government announced that individuals suffering solely from mental illness will continue to be excluded from pursuing assisted death. This decision, as per Reuters, comes after a parliamentary committee determined that the country's healthcare system is not yet prepared for such an inclusion. More time needed Speaking to reporters, Health Minister Mark Holland stated that the government will soon introduce legislation outlining details such as the duration of this exclusion. Also read | Scathing report accuses Trump administration of controlled substance violations in White House "We agree with the joint committee's conclusion that more time is required, and we'll be in a position in the coming days to talk about how much time we believe is required," he told reporters in Ottawa. Canada and assisted death Canada legalised assisted death in 2016 for individuals with a terminal illness. In 2021, it expanded the eligibility to include people with incurable but not necessarily terminal conditions. However, legislation to temporarily exclude those whose only underlying condition is a mental illness was passed. This exclusion, which has already been extended by one year, is set to expire on March 17. "We need more time," said Health Minister Mark Holland, adding that the March timeline was not a barrier, but that the government needs to move fast to extend the exclusion once more. Holland explained that more time is needed for training individuals on the established guidelines, as provinces and territories have indicated that their systems are not yet ready. Also read | Missing Indian student of Purdue University found dead on campus "Although the curriculum is present, although the guidelines are set, there has not been enough time for people to be trained on them, and provinces and territories are saying their systems are not ready and need more time," he said. Proponents of assisted death argue that it is a matter of personal autonomy, while some psychiatrists express concerns about determining whether a mental illness is truly "irremediable". Opposition parties in Canada have advocated for an indefinite pause on including mental illness cases under Canada's medical assistance in dying (MAID) law, asserting that the healthcare system was unprepared for such an expansion. If the exclusion were lifted, Canada would become one of only six countries where a person suffering solely from mental illness, and not near natural death, could seek assistance in dying from a doctor. (With inputs from agencies)

'Need more time': Canada to continue to exclude mental health patients from assisted death law

Trigger warning: Some readers may find the details of this report disturbing. Discretion is advised

Roman actress Sibilla Barbieri has ended her life in Switzerland. The 58-year-old actor and director last week chose assisted suicide across the border&nbsp;after authorities denied her request in her home country, Italy.

<h2>Why was Sibilla Barbieri seeking assisted suicide?</h2>

As per Vanity Fair Italy, the actress was suffering from terminal cancer for 10 years. Barbieri was completely dependent on oxygen therapy and pain medications, which, if interrupted, would have led to a painful death.

Given the severity of her condition, she had requested assisted suicide back in July, but her application was rejected.

In mid-September, Barbieri's health company replied to her request, stating that the medical team had considered that the woman lacked the requirement of dependence on life-sustaining treatment.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hungary-dismisses-museum-director-for-exposing-children-to-lgbt-content-655929">Hungary dismisses museum director for exposing children to LGBT content</a>

Talking to the press, Filomena Gallo, the actress' lawyer, revealed that Barbieri was told that her "current conditions are not consistent with intolerable physical suffering".

The healthcare provider also said that her condition did not fulfil conditions established by the Constitutional Court in 2019 for such cases.

<h2>How the suffering woman chose to end her life</h2>

Denied the request, Barbieri chose to end her suffering in a foreign land. She was accompanied to Switzerland by her son and Marco Perduca, of the Luca Coscioni Association, which works for human rights and civil liberties.

In a video&nbsp;statement addressed to 'all politicians' posted 19 hours ago by&nbsp;Luca Coscioni, Barbieri alleged of, "very serious discrimination between cancer patients and those who also find themselves in other non-terminal conditions."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-court-acquits-cop-who-initiated-episode-that-led-to-black-man-elijah-mcclains-death-655960">US: Court acquits cop who initiated episode that led to black man Elijah McClain's death</a>

"For this reason, I freely decided to get help by going to Switzerland because I have the necessary 10 thousand euros and I can still go physically."&nbsp;

"But all the other people condemned to die from an illness that they can't because they don't have the means, because they are alone, or they don't have the information, how do they do it? This is another serious discrimination which the State must remedy," she added.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6oVr05gpSJg?si=D7HSoThtY9tLcyQG" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<h2>Italy's assisted suicide law</h2>

In Italy, active euthanasia is a crime and a punishable offence under Article 579 (Murder of a consenting person) or Article 580 (Instigation or aid to suicide) of the penal code.&nbsp;

However, terminally ill patients can request assisted suicide, i.e. indirect help of a doctor to die. This was introduced in 2019 after a landmark judgement involving Fabiano Antoniani aka DJ Fabo, who, after a major road accident, was left tetraplegic — unable to voluntarily move the upper and lower parts of the body.&nbsp;

Marco Cappato, former member of the European Parliament, assisted DJ Fabo in availing&nbsp;medically assisted suicide, by driving him to a Swiss clinic. Afterwards, Cappato was put on trial, but the Italian Constitutional Court urged the Parliament to decriminalise assisted suicide and the former MP was acquitted.

So far, with the support of the Luca Coscioni Association, five Italian citizens have received a green light for assisted dying.

(With inputs from agencies)

Trigger warning: Some readers may find the details of this report disturbing. Discretion is advised Roman actress Sibilla Barbieri has ended her life in Switzerland.

Trigger warning: Some readers may find the details of this report disturbing. Discretion is advised Roman actress Sibilla Barbieri has ended her life in Switzerland. The 58-year-old actor and director last week chose assisted suicide across the border after authorities denied her request in her home country, Italy. Why was Sibilla Barbieri seeking assisted suicide? As per Vanity Fair Italy, the actress was suffering from terminal cancer for 10 years. Barbieri was completely dependent on oxygen therapy and pain medications, which, if interrupted, would have led to a painful death. Given the severity of her condition, she had requested assisted suicide back in July, but her application was rejected. In mid-September, Barbieri's health company replied to her request, stating that the medical team had considered that the woman lacked the requirement of dependence on life-sustaining treatment. Also read | Hungary dismisses museum director for exposing children to LGBT content Talking to the press, Filomena Gallo, the actress' lawyer, revealed that Barbieri was told that her "current conditions are not consistent with intolerable physical suffering". The healthcare provider also said that her condition did not fulfil conditions established by the Constitutional Court in 2019 for such cases. How the suffering woman chose to end her life Denied the request, Barbieri chose to end her suffering in a foreign land. She was accompanied to Switzerland by her son and Marco Perduca, of the Luca Coscioni Association, which works for human rights and civil liberties. In a video statement addressed to 'all politicians' posted 19 hours ago by Luca Coscioni, Barbieri alleged of, "very serious discrimination between cancer patients and those who also find themselves in other non-terminal conditions." Also read | US: Court acquits cop who initiated episode that led to black man Elijah McClain's death "For this reason, I freely decided to get help by going to Switzerland because I have the necessary 10 thousand euros and I can still go physically." "But all the other people condemned to die from an illness that they can't because they don't have the means, because they are alone, or they don't have the information, how do they do it? This is another serious discrimination which the State must remedy," she added. × Italy's assisted suicide law In Italy, active euthanasia is a crime and a punishable offence under Article 579 (Murder of a consenting person) or Article 580 (Instigation or aid to suicide) of the penal code. However, terminally ill patients can request assisted suicide, i.e. indirect help of a doctor to die. This was introduced in 2019 after a landmark judgement involving Fabiano Antoniani aka DJ Fabo, who, after a major road accident, was left tetraplegic — unable to voluntarily move the upper and lower parts of the body. Marco Cappato, former member of the European Parliament, assisted DJ Fabo in availing medically assisted suicide, by driving him to a Swiss clinic. Afterwards, Cappato was put on trial, but the Italian Constitutional Court urged the Parliament to decriminalise assisted suicide and the former MP was acquitted. So far, with the support of the Luca Coscioni Association, five Italian citizens have received a green light for assisted dying. (With inputs from agencies)

Denied relief in Italy, Roman actress opts for assisted suicide in Switzerland

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

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday <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;

The court&#39;s 538-page judgement included lines from the Amitabh Bachchan film and song Mukkadar ka Sikandar.&nbsp;

Paragraph 47 on page 231 ends with the lines: &quot;Rote hue aate hain sab, hasta hua jo jayega 
Woh mukaddar ka Sikandar jaaneman kehlayega.&quot;

Which translates into: &quot;Everybody comes into this world crying. But he who leaves it laughing is the king of destiny.&quot;&nbsp;

Paragraph 46 ends with a quote from Dr Jonathan Moreno, which says: &quot;Euthanasia, and especially physician-assisted suicide appears as the ultimate post-modern demand for dignity in an era of technologically-mediated death.&quot;&nbsp;

It it is important to understand though that the court has not allowed physician-assisted suicide. What it has allowed is passive euthanasia -- defined as &quot;the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment in the knowledge that the person concerned will die.&quot;&nbsp;

Active euthanasia on the other hand is &quot;the ending of a terminally ill person&#39;s life by direct intervention, such as administering a lethal dose of painkilling drugs.&quot;

The court had already allowed passive euthanasia in 2011 the case of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/aruna-shanbaug-first-supreme-court-verdict-on-euthanasia-35226" target="_blank">Aruna </a>Shaunbaug. But on Friday it allowed people to make that choice for themselves.&nbsp;

(Aruna had been in a &quot;vegetative state&quot; since she was attacked in 1973 and unable to make any choice for herself.)&nbsp;

On Friday, the Supreme Court said that a terminally-ill patient can write a &#39;living will&#39; that permits doctors to withdraw life support, saying a person with no will to live shouldn&#39;t suffer in a comatose state.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra said passive euthanasia and advance living will are &quot;permissible&quot;.

The bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan also laid down guidelines as to who would execute the will and how the nod for passive euthanasia would be granted by the medical board.

The apex court said that advance directives for terminally-ill patients could be issued and executed by the next friend and relatives of such a person after which a medical board would consider it.

The top court said that the directions and guidelines laid down by it shall remain in force till a legislation is brought on the issue.

The CJI, while reading out the judgement, said that though there were four separate opinions of the bench but all the judges were unanimous that the &#39;living will&#39; should be permitted since a person cannot be allowed to continue suffering in a comatose state when he or she doesn&#39;t wish to live.

The top court had in 2011 recognised passive euthanasia in the Aruna Shanbaug case by which it had permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position to make an informed decision.

The bench was hearing a PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, saying safeguards were needed while taking a decision by medical boards to withdraw life support of a terminally-ill patient.

On January 15, 2016, the Centre had said the 241st report of the Law Commission 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.

Read the full Supreme Court judgement:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.7068965517241379" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_4593" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/373380793/content?start_page=1&amp;view_mode=scroll&amp;access_key=key-vUCvijLZ1qp0Afe782rL&amp;show_recommendations=true" title="Supreme-Court-Euthanasia" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)

 
&nbsp;

'Rote hue aate hain sab, hasta hua jo jayega... Woh mukaddar ka Sikandar jaaneman kehlayega,' the court said in its 112-page judgement

The Indian Supreme Court on Friday recognised the right to passive euthanasia for the terminally ill. The decision was taken by a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The court's 538-page judgement included lines from the Amitabh Bachchan film and song Mukkadar ka Sikandar. Paragraph 47 on page 231 ends with the lines: "Rote hue aate hain sab, hasta hua jo jayega Woh mukaddar ka Sikandar jaaneman kehlayega." Which translates into: "Everybody comes into this world crying. But he who leaves it laughing is the king of destiny." Paragraph 46 ends with a quote from Dr Jonathan Moreno, which says: "Euthanasia, and especially physician-assisted suicide appears as the ultimate post-modern demand for dignity in an era of technologically-mediated death." It it is important to understand though that the court has not allowed physician-assisted suicide. What it has allowed is passive euthanasia -- defined as "the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment in the knowledge that the person concerned will die." Active euthanasia on the other hand is "the ending of a terminally ill person's life by direct intervention, such as administering a lethal dose of painkilling drugs." The court had already allowed passive euthanasia in 2011 the case of Aruna Shaunbaug. But on Friday it allowed people to make that choice for themselves. (Aruna had been in a "vegetative state" since she was attacked in 1973 and unable to make any choice for herself.) On Friday, the Supreme Court said that a terminally-ill patient can write a 'living will' that permits doctors to withdraw life support, saying a person with no will to live shouldn't suffer in a comatose state. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra said passive euthanasia and advance living will are "permissible". The bench, also comprising justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan also laid down guidelines as to who would execute the will and how the nod for passive euthanasia would be granted by the medical board. The apex court said that advance directives for terminally-ill patients could be issued and executed by the next friend and relatives of such a person after which a medical board would consider it. The top court said that the directions and guidelines laid down by it shall remain in force till a legislation is brought on the issue. The CJI, while reading out the judgement, said that though there were four separate opinions of the bench but all the judges were unanimous that the 'living will' should be permitted since a person cannot be allowed to continue suffering in a comatose state when he or she doesn't wish to live. The top court had in 2011 recognised passive euthanasia in the Aruna Shanbaug case by which it had permitted withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from patients not in a position to make an informed decision. The bench was hearing a PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, saying safeguards were needed while taking a decision by medical boards to withdraw life support of a terminally-ill patient. On January 15, 2016, the Centre had said the 241st report of the Law Commission 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. Read the full Supreme Court judgement: × (With inputs from PTI)

With quote from Hindi film song, Supreme Court allows passive euthanasia

In a historical judgment, the supreme court of India has recognised that living will of &#39;&#39;terminally ill patients&#39;&#39; will now be legally valid and this living will permit the medical professionals to end the terminally ill patients&#39; life when he or she is incurable.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/94mKy2S1XNU" width="560"></iframe>

Supreme Court was hearing a plea seeking to legalise the protocol. Passive euthanasia gives a terminally ill patient the right to choose not to sustain life through the artificial support system.&nbsp;The option is made available only to the terminally ill who are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement.&nbsp;

For 13 years petitioners have argued that persons afflicted with incurable terminal disease be given the right to refuse to be put on life support systems because it further agonises them. The decision by the apex court to allow passive euthanasia under set guidelines has come as a major relief for the petitioners.&nbsp;

A five-judge constitution bench&nbsp;headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra&nbsp;decided that passive euthanasia should be legalised. Now, a terminally patient will be able to decide if his/her life should not be prolonged with the help of life support or a ventilator.

&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;

A person&#39;s &#39;living will&#39; is a written document that allows a patient to give a detailed account of the medical treatment to be administered to him/her when the person is terminally ill and with no chances of natural survival or recovery.

SC said that &#39;living will&#39; be permitted but with the permission from family members of the person who seeks passive euthanasia. A team of expert doctors will have to confirm that the person&#39;s revival is practically impossible.

The plea to the Supreme Court was filed by the NGO group &#39;Common Cause&#39;.&nbsp;

Many lauded the judgment including those who had previously advocated that Aruna Shanbaug be given the right to die with dignity, a terminally ill nurse who remained in a vegetative state for 45 years.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
This judgment has also made way for moral incursions where questions are being raised on the method of passive euthanasia as it gives a vivid assumption that the patient is anyway going to die. However, legalising passive euthanasia does spare the family members from making tough decisions on behalf of the terminally ill patients.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp; 
 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The option is made available only to the terminally ill who are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement

In a historical judgment, the supreme court of India has recognised that living will of ''terminally ill patients'' will now be legally valid and this living will permit the medical professionals to end the terminally ill patients' life when he or she is incurable. Supreme Court was hearing a plea seeking to legalise the protocol. Passive euthanasia gives a terminally ill patient the right to choose not to sustain life through the artificial support system. The option is made available only to the terminally ill who are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement. For 13 years petitioners have argued that persons afflicted with incurable terminal disease be given the right to refuse to be put on life support systems because it further agonises them. The decision by the apex court to allow passive euthanasia under set guidelines has come as a major relief for the petitioners. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra decided that passive euthanasia should be legalised. Now, a terminally patient will be able to decide if his/her life should not be prolonged with the help of life support or a ventilator. "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. A person's 'living will' is a written document that allows a patient to give a detailed account of the medical treatment to be administered to him/her when the person is terminally ill and with no chances of natural survival or recovery. SC said that 'living will' be permitted but with the permission from family members of the person who seeks passive euthanasia. A team of expert doctors will have to confirm that the person's revival is practically impossible. The plea to the Supreme Court was filed by the NGO group 'Common Cause'. Many lauded the judgment including those who had previously advocated that Aruna Shanbaug be given the right to die with dignity, a terminally ill nurse who remained in a vegetative state for 45 years. This judgment has also made way for moral incursions where questions are being raised on the method of passive euthanasia as it gives a vivid assumption that the patient is anyway going to die. However, legalising passive euthanasia does spare the family members from making tough decisions on behalf of the terminally ill patients. (With inputs from agencies)

Supreme Court approves passive euthanasia, recognises 'right to die with dignity'

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!

The Supreme Court today will announce its verdict on passive euthanasia after hearing a plea that seeks to legalise the protocol. Passive euthanasia gives a terminally ill patient the right to choose not to sustain life through the artificial support system.&nbsp;

The option is made available only to the terminally ill who are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement.&nbsp;

A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, will decide whether passive euthanasia should be legalised. If passed, a terminally ill will now be able to decide if his/her life should not be prolonged with the help of life support or a ventilator.

&quot;The apex court, however, had observed that there should be adequate safeguards. Implementation of &#39;living will&#39;&nbsp;would be subject to medical board&#39;s certifying that the patient&#39;s comatose state is irreversible,&quot; PTI reported.&nbsp;

A person&#39;s &#39;living will&#39; is a written document that allows a patient to give a detailed account of the medical treatment to be administered to him/her when the person is terminally ill and with no chances of natural survival or recovery.

The plea to the Supreme Court has been filed by the NGO group &#39;Common Cause&#39;.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, will decide whether passive euthanasia should be legalised

The Supreme Court today will announce its verdict on passive euthanasia after hearing a plea that seeks to legalise the protocol. Passive euthanasia gives a terminally ill patient the right to choose not to sustain life through the artificial support system. The option is made available only to the terminally ill who are at the last stage of their life without any hope of recovery or improvement. A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, will decide whether passive euthanasia should be legalised. If passed, a terminally ill will now be able to decide if his/her life should not be prolonged with the help of life support or a ventilator. "The apex court, however, had 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. A person's 'living will' is a written document that allows a patient to give a detailed account of the medical treatment to be administered to him/her when the person is terminally ill and with no chances of natural survival or recovery. The plea to the Supreme Court has been filed by the NGO group 'Common Cause'. (With inputs from PTI)

Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on passive euthanasia today

passive-euthanasia

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