Kerala can't let poor patients die: HC
A welfare state cannot allow anybody to die for the reason that he cannot afford treatment, the High Court of Kerala has said.
Through the judgment, the court also ordered the state government to meet the treatment expenses, around Rs 50 lakh per year, of a child suffering from a rare disease, reports the Times Of India.
The judgment by a single bench said, "Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution imposes a duty on the government to take whatever steps that are necessary to ensure that the drugs are made available to such persons, for, a welfare state cannot permit anybody to die for the reason that he/she has no means to afford his treatment expenses."
"As indicated above, the son of the petitioner is being extended treatment by the manufacturer of the drug themselves under their charity programme as the petitioner cannot afford the treatment expenses. A welfare state is not expected to say that they are unable even to extend the charity that is being extended by a foreign pharmaceutical company to one of its citizens. Just because one is poor, the state cannot let him die," the court added.
The government's liability in meeting treatment expenses of citizens who cannot afford it came to be considered by the court while considering a petition (WP-C 21897/2016) filed by Manoj M of Mezhathur in Palakkad, the Times Of India reported.
The petitioner had questioned denial of treatment expenses for his son who is suffering from a rare genetic disorder named Pompe disease. Part of a group of approximately 50 rare inherited metabolic disorders named lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs), Pompe disease costs around Rs 50 lakh per year in the form of enzyme replacement therapy. LSDs affect 15 out of an average of 5.5 lakh children born in Kerala, as per the government.
The petitioner's elder daughter had succumbed to her illness in 2010. Hailing from the lower strata of the society, the petitioner had been treating his son free of cost through a charitable programme run by the drug manufacturer, at the Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences. In the petition, the father said the drug manufacturer may withdraw the charitable programme any time and his son will have no option but to die.
When this was brought to the notice of the state government, it provided six vials of the drug under a charitable programme but that was not even sufficient for a fortnight.
Responding to the petition, the state government had informed the court that it was not in a position to provide free treatment to patients suffering from LSDs. The state has equal obligation towards all citizens and has to use its resources so as to provide maximum benefit to maximum number of people.
The petitioner questioned this stand taken by the government.
Comments