{"title":"The right to life at the end of life: A note on Mortier v Belgium App No. 78017/17, 4 October 2022","authors":"Stevie Martin","doi":"10.5040/9781472564009.ch-011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Mortier v Belgium, delivered in October 2022, is the first time the Court has squarely confronted the issue of whether permitting assisted dying is compatible with a state’s obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case, brought by the son of a woman who had been euthanised, was based predominantly on the argument that the Belgian system of assisted dying failed to adequately protect the lives of vulnerable individuals, such as the applicant’s mother. A majority of the Court held that a permissive assisted dying regime could comply with the positive obligation to protect under Article 2, provided there are safeguards in place including a system capable of ensuring that an individual’s request for assistance is freely made and informed, as well as a posteriori control in the form of supervision of compliance with the legislative and regulatory safeguards. While there were deficiencies in the Belgian system’s a posteriori control which led to a finding of a violation of Article 2, the judgment clearly demonstrates that states can permit assisted dying without violating their protective obligations under Article 2. Significantly, the Court did not consider that permitting assisted dying for individuals whose suffering emanates from a non-terminal condition (including a mental illness) was problematic from a Convention perspective. The judgment is likely to be of considerable interest to policy makers, legislators, medical practitioners, and campaigners in the increasing number of jurisdictions both within the Council of Europe and beyond, that are considering whether to legalise assisted dying and, if so, the parameters of such a regime.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472564009.ch-011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Mortier v Belgium, delivered in October 2022, is the first time the Court has squarely confronted the issue of whether permitting assisted dying is compatible with a state’s obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case, brought by the son of a woman who had been euthanised, was based predominantly on the argument that the Belgian system of assisted dying failed to adequately protect the lives of vulnerable individuals, such as the applicant’s mother. A majority of the Court held that a permissive assisted dying regime could comply with the positive obligation to protect under Article 2, provided there are safeguards in place including a system capable of ensuring that an individual’s request for assistance is freely made and informed, as well as a posteriori control in the form of supervision of compliance with the legislative and regulatory safeguards. While there were deficiencies in the Belgian system’s a posteriori control which led to a finding of a violation of Article 2, the judgment clearly demonstrates that states can permit assisted dying without violating their protective obligations under Article 2. Significantly, the Court did not consider that permitting assisted dying for individuals whose suffering emanates from a non-terminal condition (including a mental illness) was problematic from a Convention perspective. The judgment is likely to be of considerable interest to policy makers, legislators, medical practitioners, and campaigners in the increasing number of jurisdictions both within the Council of Europe and beyond, that are considering whether to legalise assisted dying and, if so, the parameters of such a regime.
生命结束时的生命权:关于Mortier v Belgium App No. 78017/ 17,2022年10月4日的注释
欧洲人权法院(European Court of Human Rights)在2022年10月对莫蒂埃诉比利时(Mortier v . Belgium)一案做出的判决,是欧洲人权法院首次正视允许协助死亡是否与《欧洲人权公约》(European Convention on Human Rights)第2条规定的国家保护生命的义务相一致的问题。这个案件是由一个被安乐死的女人的儿子提起的,主要是基于这样的论点,即比利时的辅助死亡制度未能充分保护弱势群体的生命,比如申请人的母亲。法院多数人认为,如果有适当的保障措施,包括一种能够确保个人自由提出和告知援助请求的制度,以及一种以监督遵守立法和监管保障措施的形式进行的事后控制,那么一个允许的协助死亡制度可以遵守第2条规定的积极保护义务。虽然比利时系统的事后控制存在缺陷,导致发现违反了第2条,但该判决清楚地表明,国家可以在不违反第2条规定的保护义务的情况下允许协助死亡。值得注意的是,法院认为,从《公约》的角度来看,允许因非绝症(包括精神疾病)而遭受痛苦的个人协助死亡是没有问题的。这一判决可能会引起政策制定者的极大兴趣,立法者,医生,以及欧洲委员会内外越来越多司法管辖区的活动家,他们正在考虑是否使协助死亡合法化,如果是这样,这种制度的参数。
期刊介绍:
The scope includes: Clinical Negligence. Health Matters Affecting Civil Liberties. Forensic Medicine. Determination of Death. Organ and Tissue Transplantation. End of Life Decisions. Legal and Ethical Issues in Medical Treatment. Confidentiality. Access to Medical Records. Medical Complaints Procedures. Professional Discipline. Employment Law and Legal Issues within NHS. Resource Allocation in Health Care. Mental Health Law. Misuse of Drugs. Legal and Ethical Issues concerning Human Reproduction. Therapeutic Products. Medical Research. Cloning. Gene Therapy. Genetic Testing and Screening. And Related Topics.