The 2023 amendments have significantly simplified the process for passive euthanasia. Previously, High Court approval was mandatory if a 'Living Will' was not present, which was a lengthy and cumbersome procedure; this requirement has now been removed. The role of the Judicial Magistrate has also been reduced; they now only ensure that the 'Living Will' was made voluntarily and properly executed, rather than counter-signing it. Additionally, timeframes have been set for medical boards to prevent unnecessary delays in decision-making.

• •The requirement for High Court approval in cases without a 'Living Will' has been eliminated.
• •The Judicial Magistrate's role has been limited to ensuring the authenticity of the 'Living Will', not counter-signing it.
• •Strict timeframes have been prescribed for medical boards to expedite decision-making.

A 'Living Will' is a legal document that any person above 18 years of age can make with full understanding and voluntarily. In it, they state in advance what medical treatment they wish to receive or not receive (such as withdrawing life support) if they become terminally ill or fall into a permanent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. To prevent its misuse, several safeguards are in place: it must be made in the presence of two witnesses and a Judicial Magistrate; when it comes to implementing it, a two-tier medical board (primary and secondary) examines the patient's condition and certifies that there is no hope of recovery. If the patient has not made a 'Living Will', the decision to withdraw life support is taken with the consent of the family and the approval of the medical boards.

The Harish Rana case demonstrated how complex it can be to permit passive euthanasia even without a 'Living Will'. The main challenges were: first, finding doctors with sufficient expertise for the medical boards, especially when the patient has been in a coma for a long time. Second, the slow progress by states in creating lists of doctors nominated for the secondary medical board, which causes delays in the process. Third, the emotional and legal burden on families, as they have to make such difficult decisions. These challenges indicate that despite having a legal framework, there are still many obstacles to its implementation at the ground level.

Critics primarily raise three arguments: first, the principle of 'sanctity of life', which states that life should not be permitted to end under any circumstances. Second, the potential for misuse, where vulnerable or elderly patients might be pressured by family or heirs to make a 'Living Will' or withdraw treatment. Third, the 'slippery slope' argument, suggesting that permitting passive euthanasia could lead to active euthanasia or other forms of involuntary death in the future. The Supreme Court has addressed these concerns by establishing very strict safeguards: mandatory examination by a two-tier medical board, ensuring the voluntariness and authenticity of the 'Living Will', and explicitly keeping active euthanasia illegal.

• •Criticisms:
• •The 'sanctity of life' principle: Life should not be permitted to end.
• •Potential for misuse: Pressure on vulnerable patients by family or heirs.
• •The 'slippery slope' argument: Risk of moving from passive to active euthanasia.
• •Supreme Court's Solutions:
• •Strict procedural safeguards and mandatory examination by a two-tier medical board.
• •Role of Judicial Magistrate to ensure voluntariness and authenticity of 'Living Will'.
• •Explicitly keeping active euthanasia illegal.

The 2023 amendments have significantly simplified the process for passive euthanasia. Previously, High Court approval was mandatory if a 'Living Will' was not present, which was a lengthy and cumbersome procedure; this requirement has now been removed. The role of the Judicial Magistrate has also been reduced; they now only ensure that the 'Living Will' was made voluntarily and properly executed, rather than counter-signing it. Additionally, timeframes have been set for medical boards to prevent unnecessary delays in decision-making.

• •The requirement for High Court approval in cases without a 'Living Will' has been eliminated.
• •The Judicial Magistrate's role has been limited to ensuring the authenticity of the 'Living Will', not counter-signing it.
• •Strict timeframes have been prescribed for medical boards to expedite decision-making.

A 'Living Will' is a legal document that any person above 18 years of age can make with full understanding and voluntarily. In it, they state in advance what medical treatment they wish to receive or not receive (such as withdrawing life support) if they become terminally ill or fall into a permanent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. To prevent its misuse, several safeguards are in place: it must be made in the presence of two witnesses and a Judicial Magistrate; when it comes to implementing it, a two-tier medical board (primary and secondary) examines the patient's condition and certifies that there is no hope of recovery. If the patient has not made a 'Living Will', the decision to withdraw life support is taken with the consent of the family and the approval of the medical boards.

The Harish Rana case demonstrated how complex it can be to permit passive euthanasia even without a 'Living Will'. The main challenges were: first, finding doctors with sufficient expertise for the medical boards, especially when the patient has been in a coma for a long time. Second, the slow progress by states in creating lists of doctors nominated for the secondary medical board, which causes delays in the process. Third, the emotional and legal burden on families, as they have to make such difficult decisions. These challenges indicate that despite having a legal framework, there are still many obstacles to its implementation at the ground level.

Critics primarily raise three arguments: first, the principle of 'sanctity of life', which states that life should not be permitted to end under any circumstances. Second, the potential for misuse, where vulnerable or elderly patients might be pressured by family or heirs to make a 'Living Will' or withdraw treatment. Third, the 'slippery slope' argument, suggesting that permitting passive euthanasia could lead to active euthanasia or other forms of involuntary death in the future. The Supreme Court has addressed these concerns by establishing very strict safeguards: mandatory examination by a two-tier medical board, ensuring the voluntariness and authenticity of the 'Living Will', and explicitly keeping active euthanasia illegal.

• •Criticisms:
• •The 'sanctity of life' principle: Life should not be permitted to end.
• •Potential for misuse: Pressure on vulnerable patients by family or heirs.
• •The 'slippery slope' argument: Risk of moving from passive to active euthanasia.
• •Supreme Court's Solutions:
• •Strict procedural safeguards and mandatory examination by a two-tier medical board.
• •Role of Judicial Magistrate to ensure voluntariness and authenticity of 'Living Will'.
• •Explicitly keeping active euthanasia illegal.