NewKerala.com

First Indian Granted Passive Euthanasia Dies After 13-Year Coma

Harish Rana, the first person in India granted permission for passive euthanasia by the Supreme Court, has died at AIIMS Delhi. He had been in a permanent vegetative state for over 13 years following a severe head injury in 2013. The Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment earlier this month, acting on a plea from his family and following the guidelines of its landmark 2018 judgment. His case highlights the complex legal and ethical dimensions of end-of-life care in India.

Key Points: Harish Rana, First Indian for Passive Euthanasia, Dies at AIIMS

  • Landmark Supreme Court ruling
  • 13 years in permanent vegetative state
  • Withdrawal of life support at AIIMS
  • Based on 2018 euthanasia precedent
  • Family's long legal struggle
2 min read

Harish Rana, first Indian allowed passive euthanasia, dies at AIIMS Delhi after 13 years in coma

Harish Rana, granted passive euthanasia by Supreme Court, dies at AIIMS Delhi after 13 years in a permanent vegetative state from a 2013 injury.

"the medical board could exercise its clinical judgment - Supreme Court Bench"

New Delhi, March 24

Harish Rana, the first person in India to be granted permission for passive euthanasia, passed away on Tuesday at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, after remaining in a coma for more than 13 years.

The 31-year-old, who had been in a permanent vegetative state since 2013 following a severe head injury, was shifted from his Ghaziabad residence to the palliative care unit at the Dr B.R. Ambedkar Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital at AIIMS on March 14, where the process of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment was being carried out in accordance with court guidelines.

Earlier this month, on March 11, the Supreme Court allowed passive euthanasia for Rana, permitting the withdrawal of life support under strict medical supervision. A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan had ruled that the medical board could exercise its clinical judgment in line with the principles laid down in the landmark 2018 judgment in Common Cause vs Union of India, which recognised the legality of passive euthanasia and living wills.

Allowing the plea filed by Rana's family, the apex court had directed that he be admitted to AIIMS for end-of-life care, noting that he was suffering from 100 per cent disability, quadriplegia, and required continuous assistance for breathing and feeding through medical tubes.

Medical assessments conducted by expert boards concluded that Rana's condition was irreversible, with negligible chances of recovery. He had been dependent on a tracheostomy tube for respiration and a gastrostomy tube for nutrition.

The case had its origins in a petition filed by Rana's parents before the Delhi High Court, seeking permission for passive euthanasia. The High Court had earlier declined relief, prompting the family to move the Supreme Court.

During earlier hearings, the apex court had explored alternatives, including home-based medical care, after the Union government proposed assistance such as nursing support, physiotherapy, and free medicines. However, the family later approached the Supreme Court again, citing deterioration in his condition and lack of improvement despite prolonged treatment.

After reserving its verdict in January, the top court delivered its judgment allowing passive euthanasia, marking a significant moment in India's evolving legal and ethical discourse on end-of-life care.

Rana's death brings closure to a long legal and medical struggle endured by his family, while also highlighting the complexities surrounding passive euthanasia in India.

- IANS

Share this article:

Reader Comments

A
Arjun K
A landmark case indeed. It sets a crucial precedent for future families facing similar unimaginable pain. The legal process was long, but it was necessary to establish clear guidelines. This is about dignity, both for the patient and the family.
R
Rohit P
While I understand the family's agony, I have mixed feelings. In our culture, life is sacred. Who gets to decide when it's time? The court's strict supervision is good, but we must be very careful not to let this become a slippery slope.
S
Sarah B
The article mentions the government offered home care support. I wonder if more could have been done on that front earlier? Sometimes the system's support is too little, too late, leaving families with no real choice but to seek such painful options.
K
Karthik V
This case highlights the urgent need for better palliative care infrastructure across India, not just in metros like Delhi. Many families suffer in silence without access to proper support or legal guidance. Harish Rana's case will hopefully push for that change.
M
Meera T
Om Shanti. After 13 years, he is finally at peace. As a society, we need to have more open conversations about death and dignity. It's not about giving up hope, but about accepting medical reality and ending unnecessary suffering.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50