<p>The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday said the legislature should enact a law for terminally ill patients who decided to stop medical treatment in order to end their life.</p>.<p>A five-judge Constitution bench presided over by Justice K M Joseph agreed to modify its 2018 guidelines on “Living Will”, an advance medical directive on end-of-life treatment. </p>.<p>The bench, also comprising justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C T Ravikumar said only guidelines can be tweaked otherwise it will become a review of its 2018 judgment.</p>.<p>“We are only here to consider improving the guidelines. We should realise the limitations of the court also,” the bench said.</p>.<p>The top court further said that the legislature has more skills and sources of knowledge and the court is not an expert in medicine, therefore it has to be careful. </p>.<p>The court was considering a plea seeking modification of the guidelines for living will/advance medical directive issued by it in 2018.</p>.<p>The bench said the advance directive can be applied only in some cases, where terminally ill patients are not in a position to say that the treatment must stop.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Arvind P Datar, representing the Indian Society for Critical Care, contended that due to the involvement of multiple stakeholders, the procedure under the apex court guidelines has become unworkable.</p>.<p>Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj submitted that a few meetings were held with AIIMS representatives and other stakeholders and a chart of necessary safeguards has been prepared. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing NGO Common Cause, submitted that everybody has an indefeasible right to refuse treatment.</p>.<p>The top court was informed that first, a medical board would have to declare that the patient has no scope of recovery, then the district collector would have to set up an independent medical board to obtain a second opinion and after this, the matter is referred to a judicial magistrate.</p>.<p>Datar argued that the role of the judicial magistrate can be kept out.</p>.<p>The hearing in the matter will continue on Wednesday.</p>.<p>In 2018, a top court judgment recognised that a person in a persistent vegetative state may execute an advance medical directive or a “Living Will” to refuse medical treatment.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday said the legislature should enact a law for terminally ill patients who decided to stop medical treatment in order to end their life.</p>.<p>A five-judge Constitution bench presided over by Justice K M Joseph agreed to modify its 2018 guidelines on “Living Will”, an advance medical directive on end-of-life treatment. </p>.<p>The bench, also comprising justices Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C T Ravikumar said only guidelines can be tweaked otherwise it will become a review of its 2018 judgment.</p>.<p>“We are only here to consider improving the guidelines. We should realise the limitations of the court also,” the bench said.</p>.<p>The top court further said that the legislature has more skills and sources of knowledge and the court is not an expert in medicine, therefore it has to be careful. </p>.<p>The court was considering a plea seeking modification of the guidelines for living will/advance medical directive issued by it in 2018.</p>.<p>The bench said the advance directive can be applied only in some cases, where terminally ill patients are not in a position to say that the treatment must stop.</p>.<p>Senior advocate Arvind P Datar, representing the Indian Society for Critical Care, contended that due to the involvement of multiple stakeholders, the procedure under the apex court guidelines has become unworkable.</p>.<p>Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj submitted that a few meetings were held with AIIMS representatives and other stakeholders and a chart of necessary safeguards has been prepared. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing NGO Common Cause, submitted that everybody has an indefeasible right to refuse treatment.</p>.<p>The top court was informed that first, a medical board would have to declare that the patient has no scope of recovery, then the district collector would have to set up an independent medical board to obtain a second opinion and after this, the matter is referred to a judicial magistrate.</p>.<p>Datar argued that the role of the judicial magistrate can be kept out.</p>.<p>The hearing in the matter will continue on Wednesday.</p>.<p>In 2018, a top court judgment recognised that a person in a persistent vegetative state may execute an advance medical directive or a “Living Will” to refuse medical treatment.</p>