Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Supreme court clarifying the procedure, safeguards, and the crucial role of the High Court on Withdrawal of Medical Treatment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement on the withdrawal of medical treatment, clarifying the procedure, safeguards, and the crucial role of the High Court in such cases. The judgement, pronounced on January 24, 2023, has provided essential guidelines and addressed various aspects related to Advance Directives and the decision-making process.

The headline of the judgement, "High Court's Discretion in Granting Approval for Withdrawal of Medical Treatment," reflects one of the key takeaways from the verdict. The High Court has been granted the authority to constitute an independent committee of experienced doctors specializing in critical care. This committee will assess the situation and provide recommendations on granting approval for the withdrawal of medical treatment.

The judgement emphasizes the promptness of decision-making in cases involving withdrawal of medical treatment, recognizing that delays in such matters can have significant consequences. It states, "The High Court shall render its decision at the earliest as such matters cannot brook any delay." The principle of "best interests of the patient" is to be given paramount consideration while arriving at a decision.

Furthermore, the judgement highlights the procedure to be followed when there is no Advance Directive in place. It states, "In cases where there is no Advance Directive, the procedure and safeguards are to be the same as applied to cases where Advance Directives are in existence." This ensures that patients without an Advance Directive receive equal protection and consideration.

The judgement also underlines the importance of communication and dissemination of the High Court's decision. It mandates that the Registrar Generals of all High Courts, Health Secretaries, and Chief Medical Officers be informed and provided with a copy of the judgement for proper implementation and adherence.

Quoting the judgement, Chief Justice K.M. Joseph said, "The High Court's role in granting approval for the withdrawal of medical treatment is crucial to safeguard the rights and interests of the patients. It ensures that decisions are made in their best interests, taking into account all relevant factors."

The judgement has set a precedent for future cases involving the withdrawal of medical treatment. It clarifies the roles of different stakeholders, emphasizes the importance of consent, and establishes the High Court as the final authority in granting approval for such decisions.

This judgement will not only guide medical practitioners and hospitals but also provide clarity to patients, their families, and legal professionals on the legal framework and safeguards surrounding the withdrawal of medical treatment.

Overall, the Supreme Court's verdict on the withdrawal of medical treatment brings much-needed clarity, transparency, and protection for patients and their families during challenging times when tough decisions need to be made.

Date of Decision: January 24, 2023

COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) vs  UNION OF INDIA INDIAN

Similar News