How does the Supreme Court's classification of CANH withdrawal as 'passive euthanasia' fundamentally differ from 'active euthanasia', and why is this distinction critical in the Indian legal context?

CANH withdrawal is passive euthanasia because it involves *withdrawing* life-sustaining medical treatment, allowing natural death. Active euthanasia, however, involves a deliberate *act* to end life, such as administering a lethal injection, which is illegal in India. This distinction is crucial for the 'right to die with dignity' under Article 21, as it allows individuals to refuse prolonged suffering and artificial prolongation of life without sanctioning active killing. Key points: Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, leading to natural death.. Active Euthanasia: Deliberate act to cause death (e.g., lethal injection).. Passive Euthanasia (CANH withdrawal) is legal in India under certain conditions, while active euthanasia is illegal.

Despite the provision for 'Living Will' or 'Advance Medical Directive' for CANH, what practical challenges might an aspirant face in explaining its effective implementation, especially concerning its verification and adherence in critical situations?

While the Living Will empowers individuals, its practical effectiveness faces challenges. Awareness among the public and medical professionals is low. Verification, though simplified (notary/gazetted officer), can still be contested by family members, leading to delays. Ensuring the document is readily accessible and honored in an emergency, especially when the patient is unconscious, remains a hurdle. UPSC might test these gaps between policy and practice.

When deciding to withdraw CANH, how is the principle of 'best interest of the patient' balanced against the wishes of the family, especially when a Living Will is absent or unclear?

The 'best interest of the patient' principle extends beyond mere medical prognosis. Non-medical aspects include the patient's awareness, ability to interact, potential for human connection, quality of life, and the extent of suffering. When a Living Will is absent, the medical boards (Primary and Secondary) consider these factors, along with the family's input, to determine if continuing CANH would prolong suffering without any meaningful recovery or dignity. The courts act as a final safeguard to ensure a fair and humane decision. Key points: Patient's awareness and capacity for human interaction.. Quality of life and potential for unnecessary suffering.. Family members' opinions and patient's known wishes (if any).

Given the ethical complexities surrounding CANH and the 'right to die with dignity', what further reforms or public awareness initiatives do you believe are necessary to ensure its humane and just application in India?

To enhance the humane and just application of CANH, several reforms are needed. Firstly, widespread public awareness campaigns about Living Wills are crucial, simplifying the process and encouraging people to make informed choices. Secondly, comprehensive training for medical professionals on the legal and ethical aspects of CANH and Living Wills is essential. Thirdly, establishing a national registry or easily accessible digital platform for Living Wills could ensure their timely retrieval. Lastly, clear, standardized guidelines for hospital ethics committees could prevent arbitrary decisions and reduce legal ambiguities, balancing individual autonomy with societal values.

How does the Supreme Court's classification of CANH withdrawal as 'passive euthanasia' fundamentally differ from 'active euthanasia', and why is this distinction critical in the Indian legal context?

CANH withdrawal is passive euthanasia because it involves *withdrawing* life-sustaining medical treatment, allowing natural death. Active euthanasia, however, involves a deliberate *act* to end life, such as administering a lethal injection, which is illegal in India. This distinction is crucial for the 'right to die with dignity' under Article 21, as it allows individuals to refuse prolonged suffering and artificial prolongation of life without sanctioning active killing. Key points: Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, leading to natural death.. Active Euthanasia: Deliberate act to cause death (e.g., lethal injection).. Passive Euthanasia (CANH withdrawal) is legal in India under certain conditions, while active euthanasia is illegal.

Despite the provision for 'Living Will' or 'Advance Medical Directive' for CANH, what practical challenges might an aspirant face in explaining its effective implementation, especially concerning its verification and adherence in critical situations?

While the Living Will empowers individuals, its practical effectiveness faces challenges. Awareness among the public and medical professionals is low. Verification, though simplified (notary/gazetted officer), can still be contested by family members, leading to delays. Ensuring the document is readily accessible and honored in an emergency, especially when the patient is unconscious, remains a hurdle. UPSC might test these gaps between policy and practice.

When deciding to withdraw CANH, how is the principle of 'best interest of the patient' balanced against the wishes of the family, especially when a Living Will is absent or unclear?

The 'best interest of the patient' principle extends beyond mere medical prognosis. Non-medical aspects include the patient's awareness, ability to interact, potential for human connection, quality of life, and the extent of suffering. When a Living Will is absent, the medical boards (Primary and Secondary) consider these factors, along with the family's input, to determine if continuing CANH would prolong suffering without any meaningful recovery or dignity. The courts act as a final safeguard to ensure a fair and humane decision. Key points: Patient's awareness and capacity for human interaction.. Quality of life and potential for unnecessary suffering.. Family members' opinions and patient's known wishes (if any).

Given the ethical complexities surrounding CANH and the 'right to die with dignity', what further reforms or public awareness initiatives do you believe are necessary to ensure its humane and just application in India?

To enhance the humane and just application of CANH, several reforms are needed. Firstly, widespread public awareness campaigns about Living Wills are crucial, simplifying the process and encouraging people to make informed choices. Secondly, comprehensive training for medical professionals on the legal and ethical aspects of CANH and Living Wills is essential. Thirdly, establishing a national registry or easily accessible digital platform for Living Wills could ensure their timely retrieval. Lastly, clear, standardized guidelines for hospital ethics committees could prevent arbitrary decisions and reduce legal ambiguities, balancing individual autonomy with societal values.

How does the Supreme Court's classification of CANH withdrawal as 'passive euthanasia' fundamentally differ from 'active euthanasia', and why is this distinction critical in the Indian legal context?

CANH withdrawal is passive euthanasia because it involves *withdrawing* life-sustaining medical treatment, allowing natural death. Active euthanasia, however, involves a deliberate *act* to end life, such as administering a lethal injection, which is illegal in India. This distinction is crucial for the 'right to die with dignity' under Article 21, as it allows individuals to refuse prolonged suffering and artificial prolongation of life without sanctioning active killing. Key points: Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, leading to natural death.. Active Euthanasia: Deliberate act to cause death (e.g., lethal injection).. Passive Euthanasia (CANH withdrawal) is legal in India under certain conditions, while active euthanasia is illegal.

Despite the provision for 'Living Will' or 'Advance Medical Directive' for CANH, what practical challenges might an aspirant face in explaining its effective implementation, especially concerning its verification and adherence in critical situations?

While the Living Will empowers individuals, its practical effectiveness faces challenges. Awareness among the public and medical professionals is low. Verification, though simplified (notary/gazetted officer), can still be contested by family members, leading to delays. Ensuring the document is readily accessible and honored in an emergency, especially when the patient is unconscious, remains a hurdle. UPSC might test these gaps between policy and practice.

When deciding to withdraw CANH, how is the principle of 'best interest of the patient' balanced against the wishes of the family, especially when a Living Will is absent or unclear?

The 'best interest of the patient' principle extends beyond mere medical prognosis. Non-medical aspects include the patient's awareness, ability to interact, potential for human connection, quality of life, and the extent of suffering. When a Living Will is absent, the medical boards (Primary and Secondary) consider these factors, along with the family's input, to determine if continuing CANH would prolong suffering without any meaningful recovery or dignity. The courts act as a final safeguard to ensure a fair and humane decision. Key points: Patient's awareness and capacity for human interaction.. Quality of life and potential for unnecessary suffering.. Family members' opinions and patient's known wishes (if any).

Given the ethical complexities surrounding CANH and the 'right to die with dignity', what further reforms or public awareness initiatives do you believe are necessary to ensure its humane and just application in India?

To enhance the humane and just application of CANH, several reforms are needed. Firstly, widespread public awareness campaigns about Living Wills are crucial, simplifying the process and encouraging people to make informed choices. Secondly, comprehensive training for medical professionals on the legal and ethical aspects of CANH and Living Wills is essential. Thirdly, establishing a national registry or easily accessible digital platform for Living Wills could ensure their timely retrieval. Lastly, clear, standardized guidelines for hospital ethics committees could prevent arbitrary decisions and reduce legal ambiguities, balancing individual autonomy with societal values.

How does the Supreme Court's classification of CANH withdrawal as 'passive euthanasia' fundamentally differ from 'active euthanasia', and why is this distinction critical in the Indian legal context?

CANH withdrawal is passive euthanasia because it involves *withdrawing* life-sustaining medical treatment, allowing natural death. Active euthanasia, however, involves a deliberate *act* to end life, such as administering a lethal injection, which is illegal in India. This distinction is crucial for the 'right to die with dignity' under Article 21, as it allows individuals to refuse prolonged suffering and artificial prolongation of life without sanctioning active killing. Key points: Passive Euthanasia: Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, leading to natural death.. Active Euthanasia: Deliberate act to cause death (e.g., lethal injection).. Passive Euthanasia (CANH withdrawal) is legal in India under certain conditions, while active euthanasia is illegal.

Despite the provision for 'Living Will' or 'Advance Medical Directive' for CANH, what practical challenges might an aspirant face in explaining its effective implementation, especially concerning its verification and adherence in critical situations?

While the Living Will empowers individuals, its practical effectiveness faces challenges. Awareness among the public and medical professionals is low. Verification, though simplified (notary/gazetted officer), can still be contested by family members, leading to delays. Ensuring the document is readily accessible and honored in an emergency, especially when the patient is unconscious, remains a hurdle. UPSC might test these gaps between policy and practice.

When deciding to withdraw CANH, how is the principle of 'best interest of the patient' balanced against the wishes of the family, especially when a Living Will is absent or unclear?

The 'best interest of the patient' principle extends beyond mere medical prognosis. Non-medical aspects include the patient's awareness, ability to interact, potential for human connection, quality of life, and the extent of suffering. When a Living Will is absent, the medical boards (Primary and Secondary) consider these factors, along with the family's input, to determine if continuing CANH would prolong suffering without any meaningful recovery or dignity. The courts act as a final safeguard to ensure a fair and humane decision. Key points: Patient's awareness and capacity for human interaction.. Quality of life and potential for unnecessary suffering.. Family members' opinions and patient's known wishes (if any).

Given the ethical complexities surrounding CANH and the 'right to die with dignity', what further reforms or public awareness initiatives do you believe are necessary to ensure its humane and just application in India?

To enhance the humane and just application of CANH, several reforms are needed. Firstly, widespread public awareness campaigns about Living Wills are crucial, simplifying the process and encouraging people to make informed choices. Secondly, comprehensive training for medical professionals on the legal and ethical aspects of CANH and Living Wills is essential. Thirdly, establishing a national registry or easily accessible digital platform for Living Wills could ensure their timely retrieval. Lastly, clear, standardized guidelines for hospital ethics committees could prevent arbitrary decisions and reduce legal ambiguities, balancing individual autonomy with societal values.

चिकित्सकीय रूप से सहायता प्राप्त पोषण... | UPSC Concept

What is चिकित्सकीय रूप से सहायता प्राप्त पोषण और जलयोजन (CANH)?

चिकित्सकीय रूप से सहायता प्राप्त पोषण और जलयोजन, जिसे हम संक्षेप में CANH कहते हैं, दरअसल उन मरीजों को कृत्रिम तरीके से पोषण और पानी देने का एक मेडिकल तरीका है जो खुद से खा-पी नहीं सकते. इसमें आमतौर पर ट्यूब के जरिए सीधे पेट या नसों में तरल पदार्थ और पोषक तत्व दिए जाते हैं. इसका मकसद ऐसे मरीजों का जीवन बनाए रखना है जो परसिस्टेंट वेजिटेटिव स्टेट (PVS) एक ऐसी स्थिति जिसमें मरीज कोमा में होता है और ठीक होने की कोई उम्मीद नहीं होती में हैं या किसी ऐसी गंभीर, लाइलाज बीमारी से जूझ रहे हैं जहां प्राकृतिक रूप से खाना-पीना संभव नहीं है. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इसे एक "चिकित्सीय उपचार" माना है, जिसका मतलब है कि इसे सामान्य भोजन या पानी की तरह नहीं देखा जा सकता. यह पैसिव यूथेनेशिया जीवन रक्षक उपचार को हटाकर प्राकृतिक मृत्यु होने देना के संदर्भ में महत्वपूर्ण है, क्योंकि यह तय करता है कि जीवन को कृत्रिम रूप से कब तक बनाए रखा जाए, खासकर जब मरीज को ठीक होने की कोई उम्मीद न हो. यह अनुच्छेद 21 के तहत 'गरिमा के साथ मरने के अधिकार' से जुड़ा है.

Historical Background

भारत में यूथेनेशिया से जुड़े कानून का विकास अदालती फैसलों से हुआ है, क्योंकि संसद ने इस पर कोई व्यापक कानून नहीं बनाया है. इसकी शुरुआत 2011 में अरुणा शानबाग मामले से हुई थी. अरुणा शानबाग एक नर्स थीं जो दशकों तक वेजिटेटिव स्टेट में रहीं. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इस मामले में पहली बार पैसिव यूथेनेशिया की अवधारणा को मान्यता दी, लेकिन अरुणा के मामले में इसकी अनुमति नहीं दी. कोर्ट ने तब कुछ शुरुआती दिशानिर्देश दिए थे, जिसमें हाई कोर्ट की मंजूरी जरूरी थी. फिर 2018 में कॉमन कॉज बनाम भारत संघ मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट की पांच जजों की बेंच ने 'गरिमा के साथ मरने के अधिकार' को संविधान के अनुच्छेद 21 का अभिन्न अंग माना. इसी फैसले में लिविंग विल एक अग्रिम चिकित्सा निर्देश जिसमें व्यक्ति भविष्य के इलाज के बारे में अपनी इच्छा बताता है को भी कानूनी मान्यता मिली. हालांकि, इन दिशानिर्देशों को लागू करने में कई दिक्कतें आईं, खासकर मजिस्ट्रेट की मंजूरी और मेडिकल बोर्ड के गठन को लेकर. इन दिक्कतों को दूर करने के लिए, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 2023 में अपने 2018 के आदेश में बदलाव किए, जिससे प्रक्रिया को और आसान बनाया गया. इन बदलावों में मजिस्ट्रेट की भूमिका को कम करना और मेडिकल बोर्ड के गठन की प्रक्रिया को सुव्यवस्थित करना शामिल था. यह सब इसलिए हुआ क्योंकि end-of-life care पर कोई स्पष्ट कानून नहीं था.

Key Points

12 points

1.
CANH को सिर्फ सामान्य भोजन या पानी नहीं माना जाता, बल्कि यह एक चिकित्सीय उपचार है. सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट किया है कि ट्यूब के जरिए दिया जाने वाला पोषण और जलयोजन एक मेडिकल प्रक्रिया है, जिसके लिए डॉक्टरों के फैसले और निगरानी की जरूरत होती है. यह वर्गीकरण महत्वपूर्ण है क्योंकि केवल 'चिकित्सीय उपचार' को ही जीवन रक्षक सहायता के रूप में हटाया जा सकता है.
2.
यह उन मरीजों के लिए होता है जो खुद से खा-पी नहीं सकते, जैसे कि परसिस्टेंट वेजिटेटिव स्टेट (PVS) में रहने वाले मरीज. इसमें आमतौर पर नाक या पेट में डाली गई ट्यूब (जैसे PEG tube या gastrostomy tube) के माध्यम से या नसों के जरिए पोषण और तरल पदार्थ दिए जाते हैं.
3.
CANH को हटाना या रोकना पैसिव यूथेनेशिया का एक रूप है. पैसिव यूथेनेशिया का मतलब है जीवन को कृत्रिम रूप से बनाए रखने वाले उपचार को बंद कर देना, जिससे मरीज की प्राकृतिक मृत्यु हो सके. यह एक्टिव यूथेनेशिया जानबूझकर किसी को घातक इंजेक्शन देकर मृत्यु का कारण बनना से अलग है, जो भारत में अवैध है.

Visual Insights

CANH: निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु में इसकी भूमिका और कानूनी स्थिति

यह माइंड मैप चिकित्सकीय रूप से सहायता प्राप्त पोषण और जलयोजन (CANH) की अवधारणा, सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा इसे 'चिकित्सा उपचार' के रूप में वर्गीकरण और निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु के संदर्भ में इसके महत्व को दर्शाता है।

चिकित्सकीय रूप से सहायता प्राप्त पोषण और जलयोजन (CANH)

●परिभाषा
●कानूनी वर्गीकरण
●निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु में भूमिका
●प्रमुख कानूनी संदर्भ
●निर्णय का आधार

Recent Developments

7 developments

→

2026 में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने हरीश राणा के लिए चिकित्सकीय रूप से सहायता प्राप्त पोषण और जलयोजन (CANH) को हटाने की अनुमति दी, जो भारत में अदालत द्वारा अनुमोदित पैसिव यूथेनेशिया का पहला मामला है.

→

इसी फैसले में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट किया कि ट्यूब के माध्यम से दिया जाने वाला कृत्रिम पोषण और जलयोजन एक "चिकित्सीय उपचार" है, न कि केवल सामान्य भोजन, जिससे इसके कानूनी रूप से हटाने का मार्ग प्रशस्त हुआ.

→

2026 के हरीश राणा मामले में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 30 दिन की पुनर्विचार अवधि को भी माफ कर दिया, क्योंकि मेडिकल बोर्ड और परिवार दोनों इस बात पर एकमत थे कि उपचार अब निरर्थक हो गया है.

→

सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 2026 में सभी हाई कोर्ट्स को निर्देश दिया कि वे अपने अधिकार क्षेत्र के न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेटों (JMFCs) को उचित निर्देश जारी करें, ताकि अस्पताल मेडिकल बोर्डों के उपचार वापस लेने के निर्णय के बारे में उन्हें औपचारिक रूप से सूचित कर सकें.

→

कोर्ट ने केंद्र सरकार और राज्यों/केंद्र शासित प्रदेशों के स्वास्थ्य सचिवों को यह सुनिश्चित करने का भी निर्देश दिया कि सभी जिलों के मुख्य चिकित्सा अधिकारी (CMOs) सेकेंडरी मेडिकल बोर्ड के लिए योग्य डॉक्टरों का एक पैनल बनाए रखें और उसे नियमित रूप से अपडेट करें.

This Concept in News

1 topics

Appeared in 1 news topics from Mar 2026 to Mar 2026

Supreme Court Clarifies Passive Euthanasia Guidelines, Upholds Right to Die with Dignity

12 Mar 2026

यह खबर चिकित्सकीय रूप से सहायता प्राप्त पोषण और जलयोजन (CANH) की अवधारणा को बहुत स्पष्ट रूप से उजागर करती है. यह दर्शाता है कि कैसे सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने CANH को एक "चिकित्सीय उपचार" के रूप में वर्गीकृत किया, जो इस अवधारणा को पैसिव यूथेनेशिया के कानूनी दायरे में लाता है. यह खबर इस बात पर जोर देती है कि भारत में end-of-life care के संबंध में विधायी निष्क्रियता के कारण न्यायपालिका को बार-बार हस्तक्षेप करना पड़ा है. हरीश राणा मामला, जहां CANH को हटाने की अनुमति दी गई, यह दिखाता है कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट के 2018 के कॉमन कॉज दिशानिर्देश (2023 में संशोधित) अब कैसे जमीन पर लागू हो रहे हैं. इस फैसले का एक महत्वपूर्ण निहितार्थ यह है कि यह उन परिवारों और डॉक्टरों के लिए प्रक्रिया को स्पष्ट करता है जो ऐसे संवेदनशील निर्णय लेने में शामिल होते हैं, जिससे हर मामले में अदालती हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता कम हो सकती है. इस अवधारणा को समझना इसलिए महत्वपूर्ण है ताकि आप 'गरिमा के साथ मरने के अधिकार', patient autonomy और चिकित्सा नैतिकता के बीच के जटिल संतुलन को सही ढंग से समझ सकें और परीक्षा में इससे जुड़े सवालों का सटीक विश्लेषण कर सकें.

Source Topic

Supreme Court Clarifies Passive Euthanasia Guidelines, Upholds Right to Die with Dignity

Polity & Governance

UPSC Relevance

यह अवधारणा UPSC सिविल सेवा परीक्षा के लिए बहुत महत्वपूर्ण है, खासकर सामान्य अध्ययन पेपर-2 (शासन, संविधान, राजव्यवस्था और सामाजिक न्याय) और सामान्य अध्ययन पेपर-4 (नीतिशास्त्र, सत्यनिष्ठा और अभिरुचि) के लिए. निबंध पेपर में भी इससे संबंधित प्रश्न आ सकते हैं. प्रीलिम्स में, आपसे पैसिव यूथेनेशिया, लिविंग विल, अनुच्छेद 21, और अरुणा शानबाग या कॉमन कॉज जैसे प्रमुख मामलों के बारे में सीधे तथ्य पूछे जा सकते हैं. मेंस में, आपको 'गरिमा के साथ मरने के अधिकार' के नैतिक, कानूनी और सामाजिक पहलुओं का विश्लेषण करना होगा, न्यायिक सक्रियता और विधायी निष्क्रियता के बीच संतुलन पर चर्चा करनी होगी, और CANH जैसे विशिष्ट उपचारों को हटाने की प्रक्रिया में आने वाली चुनौतियों और समाधानों पर प्रकाश डालना होगा. हाल के वर्षों में, end-of-life care और patient autonomy पर प्रश्न अक्सर पूछे गए हैं, इसलिए इस विषय की गहरी समझ आपको बेहतर उत्तर लिखने में मदद करेगी.

❓

Frequently Asked Questions

1. In an MCQ, why is it crucial to understand that CANH is considered a 'medical treatment' and not just 'food and water', and what implications does this distinction have for passive euthanasia?

This distinction is crucial because only a 'medical treatment' can be legally withdrawn as part of passive euthanasia. If CANH were merely food, its withdrawal would be seen as starvation, which is illegal. By classifying it as a medical treatment, the Supreme Court allows for the cessation of artificial life support when deemed futile, upholding the right to die with dignity under Article 21.

Exam Tip

UPSC अक्सर CANH के इस विशिष्ट कानूनी वर्गीकरण पर सवाल पूछता है. याद रखें कि यह एक 'चिकित्सीय उपचार' है, न कि केवल 'सामान्य भोजन या पानी'. यही इसके हटाने का मुख्य कानूनी आधार है.

2. What significant changes have the recent Supreme Court guidelines brought regarding the role of the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in CANH withdrawal, and how does this streamline the process compared to earlier norms?

The 2023 amendments significantly streamlined the process by reducing the JMFC's role. Earlier, JMFC approval was required. Now, the hospital only needs to *inform* the JMFC about the medical boards' decision to withdraw CANH. This shifts the primary decision-making authority to the medical boards, making the process quicker and less cumbersome, while still maintaining a judicial oversight mechanism for record-keeping and transparency.

UPSC Relevance

CANH: निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु में इसकी भूमिका और कानूनी स्थिति

This Concept in News

Supreme Court Clarifies Passive Euthanasia Guidelines, Upholds Right to Die with Dignity

CANH: निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु में इसकी भूमिका और कानूनी स्थिति

This Concept in News

Supreme Court Clarifies Passive Euthanasia Guidelines, Upholds Right to Die with Dignity

CANH: निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु में इसकी भूमिका और कानूनी स्थिति

This Concept in News

Supreme Court Clarifies Passive Euthanasia Guidelines, Upholds Right to Die with Dignity

CANH: निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु में इसकी भूमिका और कानूनी स्थिति

This Concept in News

Supreme Court Clarifies Passive Euthanasia Guidelines, Upholds Right to Die with Dignity

चिकित्सकीय रूप से सहायता प्राप्त पोषण और जलयोजन (CANH)

What is चिकित्सकीय रूप से सहायता प्राप्त पोषण और जलयोजन (CANH)?

Historical Background

Key Points

Visual Insights

CANH: निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु में इसकी भूमिका और कानूनी स्थिति

Recent Developments

This Concept in News

Supreme Court Clarifies Passive Euthanasia Guidelines, Upholds Right to Die with Dignity

Related Concepts

Source Topic

Supreme Court Clarifies Passive Euthanasia Guidelines, Upholds Right to Die with Dignity

UPSC Relevance

Frequently Asked Questions

चिकित्सकीय रूप से सहायता प्राप्त पोषण और जलयोजन (CANH)

What is चिकित्सकीय रूप से सहायता प्राप्त पोषण और जलयोजन (CANH)?

Historical Background

Key Points

Visual Insights

CANH: निष्क्रिय इच्छामृत्यु में इसकी भूमिका और कानूनी स्थिति

Recent Developments

This Concept in News

Supreme Court Clarifies Passive Euthanasia Guidelines, Upholds Right to Die with Dignity

Related Concepts

Source Topic

Supreme Court Clarifies Passive Euthanasia Guidelines, Upholds Right to Die with Dignity

UPSC Relevance

Frequently Asked Questions