NEW DELHI: Unable to bear their only son’s 11-year-long vegetative state, mounting expenses and doctors promising little chance of recovery, the parents of a 30-year-old man on Tuesday requested the Supreme Court to constitute a medical board to examine withdrawal of the Ryles tube, through which he has been fed, to relieve their lone child of suffering through passive euthanasia.
A Ryles tube is a disposable tube inserted through the nose into the stomach, providing access to the nasogastric tract. It is used both to deliver food and medicine to the stomach.
However, SC said, “Removal of the Ryles tube is not part of passive euthanasia. If the Ryles tube is removed, the patient will starve and die.” It also asked govt to “please find out if some institution can take care of this person”.
SC Asks Centre To Examine Long-Term Aid For 30-Yr-Old
Despite limited income, parents — 62-year-old Ashok Rana and 55-year-old Nirmala Devi — fought on to save their son who suffered severe head injury and quadriplegia (100% disability) after falling from the fourth floor of a paying guest accommodation at Mohali while pursuing a graduation course in civil engineering.
While pleading that the meagre pension of the father was not enough to sustain the family, their counsel told a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra that they were forced to sell their house in 2021 to meet their son’s mounting medical expenses. The bench said Delhi HC had rightly dismissed their petition for passive euthanasia as was permitted by the SC, first in 2018 through a judgment and then last year by relaxing the procedure for removal of life support from terminally-ill patients in vegetative state with no real chance of revival. “Removal of the Ryles tube is not part of passive euthanasia. If the Ryles tube is removed, the patient will starve and die. Passive euthanasia is very different. Ryles tube is not a life support system,” the bench said.
The bench, however, could not wash its hands of the heart-rending case, as the parents have struggled for more than a decade, spent their life’s savings and yet see no light at the end of a long and arduous journey.
The bench requested additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati to consult the Union govt on whether some permanent solution can be found — to take care of the 30-year-old man in vegetative state and relieve the parents of their financial constraints. “It is a very hard case. The parents have struggled for 13 years and can no longer take care of their son’s medical bills,” the CJI said.
“Please find out if some institution can take care of this person. We cannot permit passive euthanasia as he is not on life support system, even though fed through Ryles tube,” the bench said. Bhati said she would consult the health ministry and respond.
A Ryles tube is a disposable tube inserted through the nose into the stomach, providing access to the nasogastric tract. It is used both to deliver food and medicine to the stomach.
However, SC said, “Removal of the Ryles tube is not part of passive euthanasia. If the Ryles tube is removed, the patient will starve and die.” It also asked govt to “please find out if some institution can take care of this person”.
SC Asks Centre To Examine Long-Term Aid For 30-Yr-Old
Despite limited income, parents — 62-year-old Ashok Rana and 55-year-old Nirmala Devi — fought on to save their son who suffered severe head injury and quadriplegia (100% disability) after falling from the fourth floor of a paying guest accommodation at Mohali while pursuing a graduation course in civil engineering.
While pleading that the meagre pension of the father was not enough to sustain the family, their counsel told a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra that they were forced to sell their house in 2021 to meet their son’s mounting medical expenses. The bench said Delhi HC had rightly dismissed their petition for passive euthanasia as was permitted by the SC, first in 2018 through a judgment and then last year by relaxing the procedure for removal of life support from terminally-ill patients in vegetative state with no real chance of revival. “Removal of the Ryles tube is not part of passive euthanasia. If the Ryles tube is removed, the patient will starve and die. Passive euthanasia is very different. Ryles tube is not a life support system,” the bench said.
The bench, however, could not wash its hands of the heart-rending case, as the parents have struggled for more than a decade, spent their life’s savings and yet see no light at the end of a long and arduous journey.
The bench requested additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati to consult the Union govt on whether some permanent solution can be found — to take care of the 30-year-old man in vegetative state and relieve the parents of their financial constraints. “It is a very hard case. The parents have struggled for 13 years and can no longer take care of their son’s medical bills,” the CJI said.
“Please find out if some institution can take care of this person. We cannot permit passive euthanasia as he is not on life support system, even though fed through Ryles tube,” the bench said. Bhati said she would consult the health ministry and respond.
