A Man Whose Life Support Was Withdrawn After Court Approval Has Died
An man from India whose life support was removed after the Supreme Court granted his parents' plea to do so has passed away.
Harish Rana's case constitutes the pioneering case of court-approved the withdrawal of life support – which involves ceasing or not providing life-sustaining treatment – within the country.
Rana, 31, died on Tuesday at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Aiims) in Delhi, where he had been under palliative care after his life-sustaining treatment was ceased.
The Background of the Case
Rana had been in a state of coma since 2013 since 2013, when he incurred grave injuries to his head after falling from a fourth-floor balcony. He was an engineering student during that period.
Prior to the tragic incident, Rana did not have a legal directive outlining directives for his treatment if he lost his ability to make choices for himself.
Also called a 'advance medical directive', this formal instrument permits any individual over 18 years to stipulate the medical care they would like to receive if they are diagnosed with a terminal illness or medical state with no hope of recovery.
The Legal Journey
In that year, the apex court legalised the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment by allowing people to draw up advance directives. Active euthanasia – any action that intentionally helps a person kill themselves – is illegal in India.
But since Rana had not created a advance directive and was unable to provide consent to being taken off life support as he was in a comatose state, his parents approached to allow their son's life-sustaining treatment to be discontinued.
They have previously said in media interviews that they had exhausted all their financial resources caring for their son and were also worried about what would happen to him following their own passing.
Rana's parents initially petitioned the Delhi High Court in 2024, requesting passive euthanasia for their son, but their plea was turned down because Rana hadn't been placed on life-support machines at the time and was, as the court noted, "surviving without any assistance from machines".
They then approached the Supreme Court, which also declined their request.
In the following year, they approached the Supreme Court again, arguing that their son's condition had worsened and that he was being kept alive "through artificial means" through life support machines.
Clinical Evaluations and the Final Decision
The Supreme Court consented to review their case after panels of medical experts assessed Rana's condition.
As per the legal framework governing advance directives in India, independent medical panels must confirm that a individual meets the criteria for their life support to be withdrawn.
Both boards said that Rana had a miniscule probability of regaining health and living a life of normalcy, and that he needed external support for feeding, bladder and bowel movements. The boards also noted that he had irreversible neurological injury and had suffered severe pressure ulcers.
On 11 March, the court observed that Rana was not responding to treatment and asked the medical boards to "exercise [their] clinical judgement" in the matter.
He was then moved from his home to the palliative care unit at the hospital, where he later passed away.
Setting a Benchmark
After Rana's passing, the family's lawyer informed a newspaper that the case would establish a benchmark in India.
"It is estimated there are many such patients across the country," he said.
The case underscores the complex moral and legal questions surrounding care at life's end, individual choice, and dignity in contemporary healthcare.
