New Delhi: A 49-year-old Bengaluru woman who petitioned the Delhi High Court to prevent her friend, a Noida-based 48-year-old man with a debilitating health condition, from travelling to Europe allegedly to undergo assisted suicide, withdrew her petition on Thursday.
As soon as the case was called before Justice Yashwant Varma’s bench, the woman’s lawyer informed the court that he had received instructions to withdraw the petition.
“I would like to withdraw this petition because I learned that [my friend] is deeply traumatised as a result of the filing of the case. I am afraid that if I proceed, the very purpose of filing this writ will be for naught,” she said in a statement to the court through her lawyer, advocate Subash Chandran.
In an effort to prevent her close friend, a 48-year-old man from Noida, from leaving the country to undergo euthanasia (Physician-assisted suicide), a 49-year-old Bengaluru woman had petitioned the Delhi High Court to revoke his emigration clearance.
The argument made in the petition by attorney Subhash Chandran KR was that the guy has Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, a difficult, incapacitating, chronic neuroinflammatory condition. It is a condition that is still being researched and is not well understood.
At one point, the individual was receiving a promising treatment called Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) at AIIMS, and his condition had significantly improved. The results of FMT demonstrate a high success rate, making it considered a safe, promising, and successful therapy technique for CFS-related issues. His confidence and hope are affected because he was unable to continue it in the pandemic crisis due to donor availability concerns.
His symptoms began in 2014, and throughout the subsequent eight years, his health deteriorated. He can only move a few steps within the house and is currently confined to his bed. Finally, he decided to seek euthanasia through Dignitas, an organisation in Zurich, Switzerland.
He travelled to Zurich in June for the first round of the psychological evaluation.
The petitioner’s information indicated that the man’s application had already been accepted and is simply awaiting a judgment. The petition claimed that a decision would probably be made by the end of August.
The petition said: “It is pertinent to mention that there are no financial constraints for providing Respondent No.3 (the patient) with better treatments within India or abroad. But he is now adamant about his decision to go for Euthanasia, which also affects the life of age-old parents miserably. It is humbly submitted that there persists a ray of hope for the betterment of his condition.”
The petition asked for a directive to the Union Minister of External Affairs to deny the man’s request for emigration permission because he had lied to both Indian and foreign officials to obtain travel authorisation.
In addition, the petitioner asked the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to establish a medical board to assess the man’s health and offer any necessary support given his unusual health situation.
