<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/f81589d5036f8434</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/harish-rana-v-union-of-india/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>Dignity at the End - Analysing the Indian Supreme Court’s First Judicially Sanctioned Passive Euthanasia Order</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Sengupta, Raghav</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2026-03-28</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>dignity</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Euthanasia</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Indian Constitution</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Indian Supreme Court</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>On 11 March 2026, the Supreme Court of India allowed the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in the case of Harish Rana v. Union of India. The Court’s acceptance of non-voluntary passive euthanasia through a best-interests paradigm might seem to be normatively attractive in certain hard cases, but it ultimately risks undermining patient autonomy and leading to ableist assumptions in the absence of a more demanding, procedurally sound account of substituted judgment and safeguards.</dc:description>
</dc>
