Gursahani and other critical care specialists hope the Supreme Court’s decision —reversing earlier rulings by both Delhi High Court and the apex court itself — will help sharpen public understanding of this complex ethical issue. Gursahani said the supervised withdrawal of artificial feeding should be seen as no different from discontinuing ventilator support, intravenous fluids or medications, or issuing a do-not-resuscitate directive after cardiac arrest. Yet when Rana’s parents approached Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court in 2024, their pleas were turned down — a reflection, Mani said, of how deeply the issue remained misunderstood. “But the process may take a week or even two after the withdrawal of artificial feeding,” an expert not associated with Rana’s treatment said. In Rana’s case, multiple medical boards had concluded that recovery was unlikely and that continued artificial feeding was prolonging suffering.

Source: The Telegraph March 18, 2026 01:48 UTC