I didn’t found any cases relevant case laws from my side to “Rights of

Hospital” in a given case study . According to me hospital doesn’t have

the right to remove ventilator from a patient. However I have some cases
regarding rights of hospital rights and I have came across these two
cases i.e. Aruna ramachandra shanbaug v. union of India and Common
cause V. union of India. Both are the cases related to Euthanasia in the
Case of aruna ramachandra stated SC patient who had been in a
persistent vegetative state for several decades. The Supreme Court of
India ruled that in exceptional cases, where a patient is in a permanent
vegetative state with no hope of recovery, withdrawal of life support
may be allowed with the permission of the High Court. The court also
recognized the concept of "passive euthanasia" and laid down guidelines
for its implementation and It was also held that in cases where patients
are in a permanent vegetative state or suffering from an irreversible
terminal illness, a decision to withdraw life support can be made by a
medical board. The board should consist of medical experts and be
guided by the principles of the patient's autonomy, best interests, and the
presence of a "living will" or advance directive expressing the patient's
wishes.
Based on my reading this is the summary of the cases

Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug V. Union of India

SC 7 MARCH 2011

Facts:
Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug, a nurse at King Edward Memorial
Hospital (KEMH) in Mumbai, was brutally assaulted and raped by a
ward boy on November 27, 1973. As a result of the assault, she suffered
severe brain damage and remained in a vegetative state for over 42
years. She was unable to express her wishes or communicate in any
meaningful way. The case came to prominence when the non-
governmental organization, Common Cause, filed a petition on behalf of
Aruna Shanbaug seeking the legalization of passive euthanasia
Issue:
The central issue in this case was whether passive euthanasia,
specifically the withdrawal of life support, should be permitted in
exceptional cases where the patient is in a permanent vegetative state
with no hope of recovery and is not able to express his/her wishes. The
case also sought clarity on the legal and ethical aspects of euthanasia in
India.
Judgment:
The case of Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug (Aruna Common Cause) vs
Union of India and Others was heard by the Supreme Court of India. On
March 9, 2018, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment. The court
recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The court distinguished between active euthanasia (where a person
intentionally causes the death of another person) and passive euthanasia
(where treatment is withheld or withdrawn with the intention of allowing
the patient to die naturally). The court held that passive euthanasia could
be permitted under specific circumstances, subject to adequate
safeguards to prevent abuse.
The Supreme Court provided guidelines for the implementation of
passive euthanasia. It held that in cases where patients are in a
permanent vegetative state or suffering from an irreversible terminal
illness, a decision to withdraw life support can be made by a medical
board. The board should consist of medical experts and be guided by the
principles of the patient's autonomy, best interests, and the presence of a
"living will" or advance directive expressing the patient's wishes.
The court also recognized the role of a "next friend" or close relative in
making decisions on behalf of patients who cannot express their wishes.
It emphasized the need for a high-level of scrutiny and careful
consideration of each case to ensure that the decision to withdraw life
support is made in the patient's best interests.
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India
SC 9 MARCH 2018
Facts-
The writ petition filed in the Common Cause v. Union of India case
sought a ruling that the "right to live with dignity" under Article 21 of
the Indian Constitution includes the "right to die with dignity" and
requested the authorization of living wills or Advance Medical
Directives for individuals in a vegetative state or with terminal illnesses.
Initially, the issue was brought before a three-judge Bench but was
transferred to a Constitution Bench due to conflicting precedents
regarding the right to die in India.
The issue originated in 1994 with the decision in P. Rathinam v. Union
of India, where a division Bench of the Supreme Court declared that the
criminalization of attempted suicide under Section 309 of the Indian
Penal Code violated the provisions of Article 14 and Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Court stated that the right to life includes the right to
die. However, this decision was overturned in the case of Gian Kaur v.
State of Punjab in 1996, where a five-judge Bench narrowed the scope
of Article 21 by ruling that the right to life does not encompass the right
to die.
Issue-
The Common Cause v. Union of India case raised five key issues, which
can be summarized as follows:
1. Is there a distinction between passive euthanasia and active
euthanasia?
2. Does the right to die in dignity fall within the purview of the right to
live with dignity protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
3. Are individuals in India allowed to include passive euthanasia in their
living wills?
4. Has the Law Commission of India made any recommendations
regarding the use of euthanasia to alleviate the suffering of patients?
5. Is there a right for individuals to discontinue medical treatment or
remove life-supporting equipment, resulting in death?

Judgment-
1. The Supreme Court of India, recognized the right to die with dignity
as a fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. The Court held that the right to life includes the right to a dignified
life and that an individual has the autonomy to make decisions regarding
their own life and death.
3. The Court further laid down guidelines and safeguards for the
implementation of passive euthanasia.
4. It allowed for the formulation of advance directives, also known as
"living wills," which enable individuals to specify their preferences
regarding medical treatment in case they become incapacitated in the
future.
5. The judgment also established a framework for the appointment of a
medical board to review cases of passive euthanasia and ensure
compliance with legal requirements.
6. The Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to the guidelines
and safeguards to prevent misuse or abuse of the right to die with
dignity.