The conditional decriminalisation of euthanasia, a remarkable feature of Belgian law

Abstract

Context

Belgium is one of the first countries in the world to have legalised euthanasia. It is, more appropriately, a decriminalisation under conditions, which are both substantive and procedural, and which are briefly summarised here. The European Court of Human Rights has recently confirmed that nor the Belgian euthanasia law, nor the way in which it is implemented in practice, are contrary to the right of life and the right to respect for private and family life.

Methodology

The way in which the law understands reality differs from that of other disciplines, including the humanities and social sciences. For this subject, reality is studied through the development of rules (issues, content, spirit), but also through their practical application, especially in the case of litigation, through the study of court decisions that may be handed down. This method is used here in relation to euthanasia.

Results/discussion

The availability of euthanasia goes beyond the (obvious) obligation to refrain from providing care or administering treatment that lacks any therapeutic benefit; it proceeds from a different logic, which fully integrates individual autonomy. By allowing persons who are suffering from unbearable (terminal) illness control over the way in which they will end their lives, rather than having to wait for death to seize them, Belgian law introduces a scheme where the patient initiates the action that will free him/her – an action that is consistent with the therapeutic role of doctors, when no other possibility remains – and which is to be distinguished from the situation where the patient consents to the care offered.

Conclusion/outlook

End-of-life situations should be examined primarily in terms of the patient's self-determination, and not the physician's duties. This would meet a real social need – that debate, which is emerging everywhere, and should be promptly solved, cannot be steered in a direction opposite to that adopted about the general rights of patients, who are recognised as having control over their bodies and their destiny (empowerment). Since the quality of life is quintessentially subjective, it seems that there is hardly any other conceivable solution than to open up to the will of the person who is no longer able to cope with the situation in which they find themselves.