Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday expressed displeasure over the Maharashtra government's failure to fully implement the Supreme Court's directions on the 'living will' issue.
A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar said it was "unfortunate" that anyone had to file a petition seeking implementation of a judgment passed by the apex court.
A living will is a legal document that a person can execute in advance, detailing the medical treatments they would or would not want used to keep them alive in the event of a medical emergency or terminal illness, as well as preferences for other medical decisions, such as pain management or organ donation.
According to the TS ruling, all municipal corporations must create medical boards and designate a competent authority as custodian to preserve living wills.
A person must notarize two copies of the will. During medical treatment and emergencies, one copy must be provided to the doctor, who will then request the second copy from the custodian for verification and decide the course of treatment based on the wishes expressed in the living will.
Dr Nikhil Datar, a gynecologist and activist, had filed a public interest litigation seeking implementation of the Supreme Court judgment in Maharashtra.
In March, the state government submitted an affidavit informing the HC that it had appointed 417 custodians.
On Thursday, Datar told the court that in addition to a primary medical board that gives its opinion on the execution of the living will, the state must also create a secondary medical board that includes a registered doctor.
The secondary medical board confirms the opinion of the primary board, after which the will can be executed. Without the secondary board a living will cannot be executed, but the government has not yet created this body, Datar said.
The court then questioned the state government as to why it had not implemented the SC directive in its entirety.
"It is unfortunate that a person has to file a petition to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court. Why can't we have a permanent secondary board? All doctors are registered... Why can't this be done?" " the HC said.
The court adjourned the hearing till July 18, asking the state government to report, by then, the measures taken to implement the SC order.
The court also issued notices to the Medical Council of India and the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as Datar sought to add them as respondents.
A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar said it was "unfortunate" that anyone had to file a petition seeking implementation of a judgment passed by the apex court.
A living will is a legal document that a person can execute in advance, detailing the medical treatments they would or would not want used to keep them alive in the event of a medical emergency or terminal illness, as well as preferences for other medical decisions, such as pain management or organ donation.
According to the TS ruling, all municipal corporations must create medical boards and designate a competent authority as custodian to preserve living wills.
A person must notarize two copies of the will. During medical treatment and emergencies, one copy must be provided to the doctor, who will then request the second copy from the custodian for verification and decide the course of treatment based on the wishes expressed in the living will.
Dr Nikhil Datar, a gynecologist and activist, had filed a public interest litigation seeking implementation of the Supreme Court judgment in Maharashtra.
In March, the state government submitted an affidavit informing the HC that it had appointed 417 custodians.
On Thursday, Datar told the court that in addition to a primary medical board that gives its opinion on the execution of the living will, the state must also create a secondary medical board that includes a registered doctor.
The secondary medical board confirms the opinion of the primary board, after which the will can be executed. Without the secondary board a living will cannot be executed, but the government has not yet created this body, Datar said.
The court then questioned the state government as to why it had not implemented the SC directive in its entirety.
"It is unfortunate that a person has to file a petition to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court. Why can't we have a permanent secondary board? All doctors are registered... Why can't this be done?" " the HC said.
The court adjourned the hearing till July 18, asking the state government to report, by then, the measures taken to implement the SC order.
The court also issued notices to the Medical Council of India and the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as Datar sought to add them as respondents.
