The high court on Tuesday directed the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (Nimhans) to give free treatment to 70-year-old HB Karibasamma for four weeks and then submit a report.
In the earlier hearing, Karibasamma had sought that Nimhans too be made a party to the case.
Justice Ajith Gunjal, while listening to the petition filed by Karibasamma seeking to be allowed euthanasia or mercy killing, on Tuesday asked Nimhans to treat the woman for a month at no cost and then submit her medical records to the court.
In her petition, Karibasamma had challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 306 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, (which relate to abetment or attempt at suicide), arguing that these go against Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution (which relate to equality before law of all individuals and protection of life and liberty).
Considering the public significance of this case, a resident of the city named Usha has sought to be impleaded in it. Usha has argued that while Article 21 of the Constitution grants a right to life, it does not, as a corollary, guarantee a right to death.
In accordance with the earlier directions of the court, Dr Ghanate Madukar, senior special orthopedic surgeon and Davangere
district health officer, filed a medical report related to Karibasamma.
The doctor explained that Karibasamma, a resident of an old age home in Davangere, underwent a detailed examination which revealed that she had been suffering from several diseases.
Lumbar spondylitis, commonly called slip disc, a painful condition that affects the spine, has been plaguing the woman for over ten years. The condition results from tears in the ring of the disc, which result in inflammation. Since nerve tissue is affected, the condition can be excruciatingly painful.
Karibasamma has been suffering not only from the slip disc problem, but has also been undergoing treatment for diabetes.
In addition to these chronic conditions, Karibasamma also complains of loss of sleep and trouble passing stools.
Her medical condition is exacerbated by the fact that she has no one to care for her, and little to live for.
Karibasamma has argued that she should be allowed to end her life with dignity. She has gone to court as she would not like to see her death termed a suicide. She would like a doctor to assist her to end her life.
Karibasamma earns a pension of Rs8,968 as a retired teacher.
The amount does not support expensive medical attention. Arguing that she has lived within her means all her life, she has refused to seek aid at her ripe age.
In her petition, Karibasamma sought that she be allowed to die in dignity as she has suffered enormous agony on account of her medical condition. She has no desire to continue to live in pain, and her economic status does not allow her expensive medical treatment.
The petitioner has, since 2003, made several appeals to be allowed to end her life.
Karibasamma had written to the Karnataka government
secretariat, the health and family welfare department, the National Human Rights Commission, the state human rights commission, the chief minister’s office and the prime minister’s office.
She has sought a physician-assisted death as a valiant end to a life of relentless struggle.
Karibasamma’s case has been much discussed, as it questions some assumptions about law and the sacredness of life that have long gone unquestioned in India.
