Dying with dignity: Breaking the taboo around 'living wills' in India

BBC - Feb 3rd, 2025

In 2010, Dr. IP Yadev faced a heart-wrenching decision regarding his terminally ill father, which led him to advocate for advance medical directives (AMDs), or living wills. Despite India's Supreme Court legalizing living wills in 2018, the concept remains unfamiliar to many due to cultural taboos around discussing death. Efforts to promote awareness are gaining traction, particularly in Kerala, where Dr. Yadev and his team have launched a program to educate people about the benefits and process of creating living wills. This initiative aims to encourage open family discussions about end-of-life choices, though it faces some resistance.

Dr. Yadev's work is part of broader efforts in India to normalize conversations about death and empower individuals to make autonomous end-of-life decisions. While the educated, upper-middle class shows initial interest, grassroots campaigns aim to expand awareness across demographics. Legal and logistical challenges, such as the lack of custodians for living wills, persist, but progress is being made in states like Maharashtra, Goa, and Karnataka. Healthcare advocates emphasize the importance of these directives in ensuring dignified death and reducing the burden on families and medical professionals. The movement towards living wills is closely tied to the evolving discourse on palliative care in India.

Ip Yadev Living Wills Kerala India Supreme Court Palliative Care Advance Medical Directives End Of Life Care

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the topic of living wills in India, effectively combining personal narratives with legal and cultural analysis. It is timely and relevant, addressing recent legal developments and ongoing challenges in implementing living wills. The article is generally accurate and clear, with credible sources and a balanced presentation of the issues. However, it could benefit from more diverse perspectives and explicit references to official documents to enhance transparency and source quality. The potential impact on public opinion and policy is significant, given the article's focus on personal autonomy and healthcare rights. Overall, the article successfully informs and engages readers on an important and evolving topic, though there is room for deeper exploration of controversial aspects and greater interactivity to boost engagement.

Accuracy

The story presents a generally accurate portrayal of the legal status and cultural context of living wills in India. It accurately describes the 2018 Supreme Court ruling that allows individuals to create living wills and choose passive euthanasia under strict guidelines. The article correctly distinguishes between passive and active euthanasia, noting that the latter remains illegal in India. However, the article could benefit from more precise verification of the number of officials appointed to manage living wills in Maharashtra and other states, as well as the current status of state government mechanisms for implementing these guidelines. Overall, the factual claims are well-supported by existing legal frameworks and expert opinions, though some logistical details require further verification.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by presenting both the legal framework and the cultural challenges associated with living wills in India. It highlights the efforts of individuals and organizations advocating for living wills, such as Dr. Yadev and Dr. Datar, while also acknowledging the cultural taboo surrounding discussions of death. However, the article could include more perspectives from those who oppose or have reservations about living wills, particularly from cultural or religious standpoints. This would provide a more comprehensive view of the ongoing debate and potential resistance to the adoption of living wills in India.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and presents information in a logical sequence, beginning with a personal story and expanding to the broader legal and cultural context. The language is clear and accessible, making complex legal concepts understandable to a general audience. The use of direct quotes from experts adds clarity and depth to the narrative. However, the article could benefit from a clearer explanation of the differences between passive and active euthanasia to ensure readers fully understand these concepts.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources, including legal experts and healthcare professionals actively involved in the implementation and advocacy of living wills. Dr. Yadev and Dr. Datar are cited as authorities on the subject, providing firsthand accounts and insights. However, the article lacks references to official documents or statements from governmental bodies that could enhance the credibility of the claims about the legal and procedural aspects of living wills. Including a wider range of sources, such as legal analysts or cultural experts, could strengthen the article's reliability.

Transparency

The article is transparent about the experiences and motivations of the individuals it profiles, particularly Dr. Yadev's personal story and Dr. Datar's advocacy efforts. It clearly explains the legal process for creating a living will and the challenges faced in its implementation. However, the article could be more explicit about the sources of its information, particularly regarding the legal and procedural details of living wills. Providing links to legal documents or official guidelines would enhance transparency and allow readers to verify the information independently.