Pleas for euthanasia were made not only on behalf of nurse Aruna Shanbaug, but kin of many others in India, living in a similar vegetative state have also sought an end to their lives in a dignified manner. Most of these pleas were, however, rejected.
Those fighting difficult and debilitating illnesses had also pleaded for euthanasia in the absence of proper treatment or the funds required for the same. Euthanasia is an act of intentionally ending a life to end pain in the case of terminally ill patients or those in a persistent vegetative state.
Passive euthanasia - withdrawing life support of patients in a persistent vegetative state - is, however, legal in India.
Other Pleas For Euthanasia
2013 - Dennis Kumar, Tamil Nadu: A porter, Dennis Kumar from Kanyakumari district sought permission from the district collector to grant euthanasia for his infant son, who had been suffering since birth from an unknown disorder. Unable to pay for his treatment or see his son suffer, Kumar felt euthanasia would relieve both his son and him of their misery. The plea was rejected by the court.
2008 - Jeet Narayan, Uttar Pradesh: Jeet Narayan of Mirzapur had pleaded for euthanasia for his four sons who were all paralysed below the neck and were confined to bed. He had written in 2008 to President Pratibha Patil, who rejected his plea.
2008 - Dilip Machua, Jharkhand: Dilip Machua who was paralysed following an accident in 2008 had pleaded for mercy killing. His plea was not granted, but Machua died later.
2003 - Jharkhand: An acid attack victim in Dhanbad had pleaded for euthanasia or medical support for her skin reconstructive surgery. The acid attack had left her partially deaf, almost blind and with burnt skin all over her face, eyes and nose. With no money for surgery, the victim appealed to the government to fund her or give her the right to kill herself. Her pleas were rejected.
The Supreme Court on March 7, 2011, ruled out active euthanasia - the administration of a lethal injection to end lives of terminally ill patients.
The court permitted only passive euthanasia for patients who were either brain dead, or were in a persistent vegetative state or were supported entirely through a ventilator or any artificial life support.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)