Search

What does the Chilean Constitution say about euthanasia? When we read the Chilean Constitution we cannot find the word "euthanasia" in the text, and there is no such thing as a right to die, therefore the answer should apparently be that the Constitution does not say anything about euthanasia and, in short, euthanasia is not allowed. However, on a second reading we can find out some statements from which we can infer another answer. My aim is to show that there is room for the acceptance of euthanasia in the Chilean Constitution, and in other similar Constitutions and international regulations in which freedom of conscience is granted., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The most important Public policy debates today surround the use of euthanasia to end the sufferings of terminally ill patients. This debate revolves around one of the most important aspects which is, the right to a dignified life, and it is the central concern for one and all. This research paper is an attempt to analyze the legal issues involved in legalizing euthanasia and the consequences thereof. The research paper will also focus on the role played by the judiciary in India related to euthanasia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper proposes a reflective exercise on patents and medicines used to practice euthanasia, following the prohibition of Decision 486 of 2000 that refers to the exclusion of patenting of products that harm people's lives. The objective of the article is to make an approximation to the tension between the prohibition of patentability of medicines used for euthanasia -based on the Right to life-versus the right to private property. Through a deductive methodological approach and based on the systematic interpretation, the authors draw a scenario from the intellectual property law and current constitutional standards. As a result, some elements of the debate are raised, to solve one of the most complex tensions for intellectual property. Finally, the need to study this problem in a comprehensive and integrative way to understand the implications of euthanasia is concluded; not only for the doctor or the patient and its relatives, but also for the other actors involved, as is the case of the pharmaceutical industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The case Mortier v. Belgium is the first case where the Court comments on the figure of euthanasia. The area of euthanasia in particular raises the issue of finding a balance between the protection of the patients' right to life in Article 2 of the Convention and that of the right to respect for his or her private life and personal autonomy in Article 8 of the Convention. The Court confirmed the States must be afforded a margin of appreciation in finding this balance. However, it does not concern an unlimited margin as the Court reserved its power to review the States fulfilment of its obligations under Article 2. After deciding that there had been no breach of article 8 in the performing of euthanasia as such, the Court examined the positive obligation of Belgium to foresee in sufficient safeguards to protect the right to life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The discussion of legal aspects of euthanasia and assisted termination of life has been going on for many years. It touches upon complex topics such as legal, moral, health, religious or societal issues. In terms of human rights, it focuses primarily on juxtaposing the right to life with other rights, such as the right to privacy, the right to decide for oneself, or freedom from torture and inhumane treatment. At the level of international law, the European Court of Human Rights has not decided to establish uniform standards for the protection of the right to life regarding euthanasia and assisted termination of life, allowing the application of the principle of freedom of assessment by the signatory states of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The consequence of this is the establishment by individual countries of non-uniform legal regulations, which leads to a differentiation in the legal situation of their citizens. The purpose of this article is to determine whether it is possible to derive a universal right to dignified death, and what the consequences of a lack of an international standard on legal regulations in the field of euthanasia and assisted termination of life are for the protection of human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Przeglad Sejmowy is the property of Kancelaria Sejmu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Derecho Penal y Criminologia is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia, Departamento de Derecho Penal y Criminologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper aims to shed light on the interpretation of mercy killing, i.e., euthanasia, in European Court of Human Rights cases. This controversial phenomenon has a specific legal status. More specifically, due to the complexity of euthanasia, it is impossible to create universally accepted international standards. On the other hand, modern society creates a need to expand the legal boundaries regarding bioethical issues related to the compassionate endof- life care. The European Court of Human Rights is a unique international organization that interprets universal legal documents, especially the European Convention on Human Rights, in the context of euthanasia. Bearing this in mind, it is important to collect and analyze the information resulting from the specific decision-making process of the European Court of Human Rights. The Court's past and future similar cases will certainly affect the future legal status of euthanasia both internationally and at the level of member states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The right to life has a unique and outstanding importance in the International Human Rights Law. However, at the same time, this right suffers from new threats and contradictions. In this paper, I will address these paradoxes, concerning the moment, in which the legal protection of the human being begins; the tendency to accommodate the beginning of life to biotechnological interests; the manipulation of language, as well as the relativization of the right to life and the pretensions of justifying abortion and euthanasia as a requirement of the right to life. I will offer an assessment of these paradoxes in the light of the Magisterium of John Paul II, and I will end with four signs of hope and commitment at the beginning of the 21st century in relation to the protection of the right to life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The idea that human beings have some natural rights, which is the fulcrum of today's understanding of human rights and also the declarations declaring these rights, constitutes the foundations of the modern state; by making the "individual" the focal point in the civil and political dimensions, opposed to the traditional governance systems. The view that was brought along by this thought, the right to life does not belong to a superior poweras a sacred thing, but belongs to human beings and the subject of the rights is "human" itself; had made the autonomous individual have a say on the matter of exercising of rights fully. Thus, the concept of euthanasia and the problems brought with it, have lost their theoretical attribute; which had been discussed by thinkers in various contexts, often related to suicide since Ancient Greece and Rome; and has become a practical problem that needs to be revived within the individual-state relationship with placing the act of implementation on the state. As a matter of fact, from this point of view of autonomy, people have repeatedly carried their demands on this issue to national and international judicial authorities; but states, national and supranational organizations have always rejected the demands, regarding the issue since the state has a negative obligation to protect individual rights. Through the present paper which argues the subject matter in the context of human rights, first "the philosophy of value and the evaluation activity as a human phenomenon" will be emphasized within the framework of the evaluation of euthanasia as a method; then it will be shown who is the subject of the right to life, which is one of the basic human rights; it will be discussed whether euthanasia, which is a derivative of the exercising the right to life fully, can be asserted as a "right" within the scope of human rights; and finally, its position in human rights and why it imposes the act of implementation on the state will be defined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decision no. 2022-1022 QPC of November 10, 2022, of the French Constitutional Council declared the constitutionality of the French Health Code that establishes the prevalence of medical criteria to the will of the patient in an irreversible terminal clinical situation to be artificially kept alive. As a result of this case, and in accordance with the «ratio decidendi» of the Decision adopted by the French constitutional jurisdiction, the article reflects on the response that the Spanish Constitutional Court could give in the event of a similar case. For this, the constitutional and conventional jurisprudence on the limits to the domain of life is examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Studia z Zakresu Nauk Prawnoustrojowych. Miscellanea is the property of Kujawy & Pomorze University in Bydgoszcz and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The right to life is a fundamental and absolute human right, which, through its importance, goes beyond the sphere of personal interest, having relevance for the whole society. In a generalized context, it includes in its structure all the other rights, but also duties recognized to man. The right to life is portrayed as having two dimensions: a minimum content and a maximum content. Stricto sensu, the right to life protects the human being against harm to his or her bodily integrity by another person, and is therefore primarily a prohibition on killing another being. Lato sensu, the right to life is an expression that designates the set of rights that are attributed to living beings in general and people in particular. It is important to determine when the protection of the right to life begins, which in various laws of the European States leads to the criminalization or non-criminalization of the act of abortion and also to the determination of the content of this right, in order to determine whether it includes the right to die. Marginally, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on this alleged right, challenging its existence, but not unanimously. What are the limits of this right if it were recognized? Is there such a right or not, and if so, can it be accepted that death is only one side of the right to life? In the following analysis we will try to identify certain questions to which we should look for an answer, in order to reach a conclusion: Does the right to life include the right to die?

Copyright of Collected Papers of the Faculty of Law in Split / Zbornik Radova Pravnog Fakulteta u Splitu is the property of Split Faculty of Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi is the property of Justice Academy of Turkey and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article analyzes the legal, philosophical, international and constitutional dimension of the right to a dignified death vis-à-vis the right to life and individual freedom of the human being, in the face of the decriminalization of medically assisted suicide with its close relationship with euthanasia in the State of Colombia. For this, it will be essential to analyze the theoretical-philosophical guidelines of the decriminalization of assisted suicide with respect to the rights to life and to a dignified death. It will also review the main arguments in favor of the magistrates of the Constitutional Court of Colombia that were held for the decriminalization of this legal figure due to the appeal filed by the Laboratory of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (DESCLAB) that challenged Article 107 of the Colombian Penal Code. Likewise, the international protection of the human rights involved in the present discussion will be exposed, these are, the unrenounceability of the right to life, the right to a dignified life, the right to individual freedom and the right to a dignified death. On the other hand, the difference between the legal figures of medically assisted suicide and euthanasia will also be determined, with special emphasis on life as a non-absolute right. It is concluded that life as a value in itself is not absolute, since it is conditioned to the welfare of other aspects such as quality of life and the possibility of freedom to exercise it as one wishes without any kind of suffering, since the value of life depends on the value of being able to choose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The right to life is a fundamental and absolute human right, which, through its importance, goes beyond the sphere of personal interest, having relevance for the whole society. In a generalized context, it includes in its structure all the other rights, but also duties recognized to man. The right to life is portrayed as having two dimensions: a minimum content and a maximum content. Stricto sensu, the right to life protects the human being against harm to his or her bodily integrity by another person, and is therefore primarily a prohibition on killing another being. Lato sensu, the right to life is an expression that designates the set of rights that are attributed to living beings in general and people in particular. It is important to determine when the protection of the right to life begins, which in various laws of the European States leads to the criminalization or noncriminalization of the act of abortion and also to the determination of the content of this right, in order to determine whether it includes the right to die. Marginally, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on this alleged right, challenging its existence, but not unanimously. What are the limits of this right if it were recognized? Is there such a right or not, and if so, can it be accepted that death is only one side of the right to life? In the following analysis we will try to identify certain questions to which we should look for an answer, in order to reach a conclusion: Does the right to life include the right to die? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper deals with the issue of suicide and assisted suicide, especially its ethical, criminal law and canon law evaluation. In the first chapter, the author explains what needs to be perceived under these terms and how they differ from euthanasia, offers current statistics on suicides in the Slovak Republic and discusses basic types of suicides, evaluates the issue of the right to life from an ethical point of view and criticizes the concept of the “right to death”. He concludes that the possible legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia would have widespread negative consequences. The second chapter of the paper is based on the constitutional guarantees of the right to life, which is also supported by the international obligations of the Slovak Republic in this area. Subsequently, it offers a criminal analysis of suicide and assisted suicide in the Slovak legal system. In the last, third chapter, the author finally discusses the issue from the perspective of the doctrine, law and practice of the Catholic Church.

The question of euthanasia has a complexevolution, generating debates in legal media. The fact that certain countries have authorized the use of such means to end someone's life has caused a dangerous void in the legal system. It consists of the danger to end the life of foreign citizens in those countries in which euthanasia is legal, although the native countries of those citizens incriminate such means. Conflicts rise, involving the law applicable in such cases. There is no agreement in the worldon the problem of euthanasia and medical assisted suicide. Public debateson the opportunity of legal acceptance are only a “gold subject” for sociologists or a “hot one” for the journalists, but they are a real need in some countries. The whole experience in the world gives us no acceptable, simple and easy to apply solutions. Unfortunatelly, nowadays, or in the near future we can notexpectfor a unitary point of view in the field of euthanasia.

The right to life is the first right to liberty and security of person, and its enjoyment is a requisite for the enjoyment of other rights. The imposition of the death penalty may involve the violation of a number of internationally guaranteed human rights. These include the right to not being arbitrarily deprived of life, and a number of specific procedural and other rights that must be respected in any case in which the death penalty is imposed. The imposition of the death penalty may also violate other rights, such as the right to not being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the right to a fair trial, just equality and non-discrimination, and freedom of thought. There are a number of national and international acts that protect the right to life. Government has a positive obligation to protect people's lives within its jurisdiction, the duty to protect people from the risk of harm from actions of public authorities. Government must protect people's lives in terms of health care, dangerous activities and incidents on ship boards or in construction sites. It should increase public safety and minimize road accidents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Lex Medicinae: Revista Portuguesa de Direito da Saúde is the property of Centro de Direito Biomedico and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Lex Medicinae: Revista Portuguesa de Direito da Saúde is the property of Centro de Direito Biomedico and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article aims to grasp the right to life from a different perspective. Modernity focuses to understand life through living rather than death. The right to life is perfectly suited for body politics of positive power. When life became a basic concept that encompasses the whole social space in modernity, it has also come to the fore as the most basic protection area of law. Yet, understanding the right to life without considering body politics inevitably remains uncomplete. As is well known, life is also considered as a primary research area by human rights as an academic discipline and of course human rights law. The right to life is the fundamental founding right of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The scope of the right regulated Article 2 of the Convention has been expanded in time by way of the relevant case law and court practices. Under the influence of case law, the Convention has obtained a very dynamic content and has adapted itself to new emergent situations. Finally, it should be pointed out that, although not included in the text of the Convention, many issues such as abortion and euthanasia have been discussed in the human rights case law.

Copyright of Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional is the property of Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista de Derecho y Genoma Humano is the property of Dykinson SL and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Annals of 'Constantin Brancusi' University of Targu-Jiu. Juridical Science Series is the property of Universitatea Constantin Brancusi din Targu-Jiu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The public debate in the EU set off by the recent covid crisis, as to who should have priority access to life support ventilation machines and on which criteria the triage should take place, showed a marked tendency towards a utilitarian approach and a departure from the traditional reverence in which the right to life was held so far. This shift in values with emphasis on economic, pragmatic considerations, is not new: it has been evolving gradually, especially in field of medicine and bioethics, as shown by the growing number of EU states which have adopted end-of-life legislation, legalising euthanasia, decriminalising assisted suicide or easing up the conditions for organ transplant and donation. While the EU legal framework and the European Convention of Human Rights do protect unequivocally the right to life, the sanitary policies recently adopted by some EU member states during the covid pandemic have shown the difficulties in balancing the economic considerations with the need to protect the public health, and, ultimately, the right to life. This article purports to highlight, using references to specific national legislations, the conflict between the existing EU legal framework and these latest utilitarian tendencies in public policies and regulations, and the need to assess their moral foundations, as well as their long-term consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho y Genoma Humano is the property of Dykinson SL and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Considered a current topical the euthanasia, or under other names such as medically assisted suicide, or death with dignity, is a procedure that ensures the death of people suffering from incurable diseases and who over time are subject to degrading suffering. Recognition of a right to death is considered to be a delicate matter, susceptible to a multidisciplinary approach, with social, legal, moral, religious aspects. Although euthanasia or medically assisted suicide is legalized in many countries, it practically calls into question the extent to which the protection of the right to life must be exercised. Paradoxically, the very right to life - an essential principle, constituting the indispensable condition for exercising the other guaranteed rights, does not enjoy the establishment of well-defined borders. This paper is a summary of this phenomenon, which is growing, motivated mainly by the care and protection that must be given to the individual, regardless of his condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to define the content, interpretation and understanding of palliative care / medicine in the context of the development of modern biomedicine with the priority of the role of protection and respect for human rights, while focusing on the categories of seriously ill and their implementation of "the right to life", "the right to health", and "The right to death". The study was conducted on the basis of the analysis of normative legal acts, jurisprudence, relevant scientific and statistical data that regulate the issues of palliative and hospice care, euthanasia and their interconnection. Comparative palliative care in different countries was based on theoretical sources, legislation of the countries and the "Quality of Death Index". The overview of the laws of the world was done and it was found that the country in which the euthanasia is legally possible; countries where it is not prohibited and the countries criminal law which establishes the prohibition of euthanasia with further punishment for its implementation. The statistics of recent years show that the majority of diseases, which in the future lead to incurable diseases, in which both patients and relatives find themselves in the path of despair and fear. In such circumstances the need for palliative care constantly ascending aye. In this context, questions arise as to the understanding of the nature of palliative care / medicine as a combination of therapeutic measures or a decent completion of life linking these two areas with the realization of such rights as the right to life, health, and death. In the context of the latter, the understanding of the role and place of euthanasia is becoming apparent not only for the severely ill, but also for healthy people, based on the desire for a decent completion of life and the impossibility of committing suicide, which is a punishable act. That is why the importance of palliative care/medicine is necessary, first of all, from the legal point of view and the protection of human rights, which is the priority of every democratic state. In the study, it was concluded that palliative care/medicine must have a clear understanding and legal consolidation at both the international and national levels, based on the concept of essence "pain" through a set of measures to right ted for rehabilitation or worthy end of life, in a speech last activity search effective ways to avoid future life-threatening cases. Therefore, palliative aid/medicine serves some basis for the rights to a decent life worthy of death of people with the prospect of an overall strategy of healthy and decent life for future generations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper analyses ethical dilemmas and conflicting issues tied to euthanasia and the institutionalization of the right to a dignified death, viewed through a prism of arguments in favour of and against euthanasia, solutions of comparative law and the practice of the European Council and The European Court of Human Rights in this field, as well as the existing practices of physicians with respect to the implementation of various modalities of euthanasia. At the national lavel, the topic is becoming of interest as the Preliminary Draft of the Civil Code, in essence foresees, that this right can be effectuated in exceptional cases whereby all humane, psycho-social and medical conditions are fulfilled; whilst in a public hearing regarding the proposed solution showed a lack of readiness of the expert public, primarily medical, for radical changes in this field. Taking into consideration that passive euthanasia, whereby an incurable disease is allowed to run its course is widespread in medical practice, and that palliative care cannot provide all dying patients with cumbrous symptoms a peaceful and dignified death, the question of the right to euthanasia should be approached without hypocrisy. Access to euthanasia should be enabled, but under strict conditions, exclusively to individuals that are in the conclusive stages of an incurable illness, where death within a foreseeable time period is inevitable. Conditions and procedures tied to euthanasia should be precisely defined, so as to avoid its misuse and to establish clear rules in terms of physician accountability.

Copyright of Inonu University Law Review / İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Inonu University Law Review (IULR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The present article is part of a dense literature – result of a perennial debate – that has polarized societies for a long time and has evident reverberations in the present. It deals with “the right to death”, trying to offer some answers referring to its existence in fact and the way in which it is perceived by different states and diverse entities with juridical nature. In the first part of the paper, it is insisted upon the right to life, so that subsequently, to speak in detail about a “right to death” and the moral and juridical implications of using such phrases. There are analyzed different states of the world found on one part or the other of the barricade in what concerns the legality of euthanasia and assisted suicide – considered the two hypostasis of the right in question. It is offered, as well, an analysis of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, mentioning that, paradoxically, while it cannot be modified so that it allows the appearance of some new rights, it can tacitly accept the creation by some states that have adhered to it of some rights antagonistic with those presented in its text. The conclusion, is that not any liberalization movement of a social action – quantified through the request of a right – has as a direct result a progress of the respective society, especially when the action creates something diametrically opposed to some fundamental functioning norms, such as, by excellence, the granting of the protection of life of all individuals.