What's REALLY Behind Aruna Shanbaug's Tragic Case? скачать в хорошем качестве

What's REALLY Behind Aruna Shanbaug's Tragic Case?

The heartbreaking and landmark case of Aruna Shanbaug raised one of the most sensitive and controversial questions in Indian legal and moral discourse: Does an individual have the right to die with dignity? In this video, we delve into the tragic story of Aruna Shanbaug—a young nurse whose life took a tragic turn and who became the face of India's debate on passive euthanasia. Through this powerful dramatization and visual narrative, we revisit her story, the legal battle that ensued, and the broader constitutional, ethical, and human rights questions raised by her case. 🎬 What This Video Covers: The life of Aruna Shanbaug before the incident The 1973 attack that left her in a permanent vegetative state The 42-year-long wait in a hospital bed The PIL filed by journalist Pinki Virani The Supreme Court’s 2011 judgment on passive euthanasia Legal and ethical analysis of the “Right to Die” under Article 21 The impact of the case on Indian jurisprudence The 2018 verdict legalizing passive euthanasia with guidelines Global perspective on euthanasia Where India stands today on the "Right to Die" 👩‍⚕️ Who Was Aruna Shanbaug? Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug was a young nurse working at Mumbai’s King Edward Memorial (KEM) Hospital in 1973. Vibrant, dedicated, and full of dreams, her life took a horrific turn on the night of November 27, 1973, when she was brutally assaulted by a hospital ward boy. The attack left her in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) — unable to move, speak, or care for herself — for over 42 years. What followed was not just a medical tragedy, but a prolonged legal, ethical, and societal dilemma. Her case came to symbolize the complexities of euthanasia in India and raised questions no legal system finds easy to answer: Who decides the value of life when consciousness is lost? ⚖️ The Legal Battle for Her Right to Die: In 2009, journalist and activist Pinki Virani—who had written a book on Aruna’s life—filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court of India seeking permission for passive euthanasia, arguing that keeping Aruna alive through forced feeding and medication was a violation of her dignity and right to die with respect. The Supreme Court, in a historic judgment on March 7, 2011, rejected the plea to withdraw life support in Aruna’s case but laid down broad guidelines allowing passive euthanasia under exceptional circumstances. It was a momentous development. For the first time, the Indian judiciary recognized that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution could be interpreted to include the right to die with dignity. 💡 Passive vs Active Euthanasia: To clarify: Passive euthanasia involves withdrawing or withholding medical treatment, such as life support or feeding tubes, thereby allowing a person to die naturally. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, involves deliberate intervention to end life, such as administering a lethal injection. This remains illegal in India. In Aruna’s case, the court said that passive euthanasia could be permitted under strict legal oversight. It set the stage for a larger debate. 📜 Supreme Court Guidelines (2011): In the 2011 judgment, the SC specified: Passive euthanasia could be allowed under supervision of the High Court. The request must come from close relatives, doctors, or caregivers. The decision must be backed by a medical board. The High Court must give permission after considering all aspects. This judgment wasn’t just about Aruna. It was about millions of people in terminal illness or PVS and their families who were otherwise helpless. 🏛️ The Turning Point: 2018 Verdict While Aruna Shanbaug passed away in May 2015 due to pneumonia, her case set the ball rolling. In March 2018, the Supreme Court of India delivered another landmark judgment in the Common Cause vs Union of India case. The court finally legalized passive euthanasia, allowing individuals to draft a “living will”—a document specifying the type of medical treatment they wish to receive (or not receive) if they become incapacitated. The court emphasized: Dignity in death is as important as dignity in life. The state cannot force prolonged suffering on individuals in incurable states. Autonomy over one’s body and life is part of Article 21.