基于自决权在监狱中提供协助死亡的案例:在囚犯和非囚犯之间创造平等?

Q2 Social Sciences
D. Fenwick, Philippa Tomczak, A. Cochrane
{"title":"基于自决权在监狱中提供协助死亡的案例:在囚犯和非囚犯之间创造平等?","authors":"D. Fenwick, Philippa Tomczak, A. Cochrane","doi":"10.1177/09685332221107445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article makes the case for the provision of access to assisted death in prisons, founded on the right to self-determination under Article 8(1) ECHR, in order to create equivalence between prisoners and non-prisoners. It considers possible State justifications for interferences with the right under Article 8(2) and whether they would meet the Convention standards of legality and proportionality. In relation to proportionality, it is argued that the foundational basis for restrictions on assisted dying imposed on both the general and prison populations derives from the concept of human dignity, a concept which is also fundamental to prisoners’ rights. Under the banner of proportionality, from an initial presumption of equivalence of access to assisted dying, the article identifies certain conditions inherent in the prison situation that inevitably oppose human dignity and which provide a plausible basis for divergence. Ultimately, it is concluded that an absolute bar on provision of access to assisted dying in prisons cannot be justified, but that the factors that undermine dignity in prison could justify a degree of divergence from creation of equivalence between the prison and the non-prison populations in terms of such access.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"22 1","pages":"217 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A case for the provision of assisted dying in prisons founded on the right to self-determination: Creating equivalence between prisoners and non-prisoners?\",\"authors\":\"D. Fenwick, Philippa Tomczak, A. Cochrane\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09685332221107445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article makes the case for the provision of access to assisted death in prisons, founded on the right to self-determination under Article 8(1) ECHR, in order to create equivalence between prisoners and non-prisoners. It considers possible State justifications for interferences with the right under Article 8(2) and whether they would meet the Convention standards of legality and proportionality. In relation to proportionality, it is argued that the foundational basis for restrictions on assisted dying imposed on both the general and prison populations derives from the concept of human dignity, a concept which is also fundamental to prisoners’ rights. Under the banner of proportionality, from an initial presumption of equivalence of access to assisted dying, the article identifies certain conditions inherent in the prison situation that inevitably oppose human dignity and which provide a plausible basis for divergence. Ultimately, it is concluded that an absolute bar on provision of access to assisted dying in prisons cannot be justified, but that the factors that undermine dignity in prison could justify a degree of divergence from creation of equivalence between the prison and the non-prison populations in terms of such access.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law International\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"217 - 248\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332221107445\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332221107445","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: 1

摘要

本条规定,根据《欧洲人权公约》第8条第(1)款的自决权,在监狱中提供协助死亡的机会,以便在囚犯和非囚犯之间建立对等关系。它审议了国家干预第八条第(2)款规定的权利的可能理由,以及这些理由是否符合《公约》的合法性和相称性标准。关于相称性,有人认为,对普通人口和监狱人口实施协助死亡限制的基本依据来自人的尊严概念,这一概念也是囚犯权利的基础。该条打着相称性的旗号,从最初对协助死亡的同等机会的推定出发,确定了监狱状况中不可避免地与人的尊严相悖的某些固有条件,并为分歧提供了合理的基础。最终得出的结论是,绝对禁止在监狱中提供协助死亡的机会是不合理的,但破坏监狱尊严的因素可以证明,在这种机会方面,监狱和非监狱人口之间存在一定程度的差异,无法实现平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A case for the provision of assisted dying in prisons founded on the right to self-determination: Creating equivalence between prisoners and non-prisoners?
This article makes the case for the provision of access to assisted death in prisons, founded on the right to self-determination under Article 8(1) ECHR, in order to create equivalence between prisoners and non-prisoners. It considers possible State justifications for interferences with the right under Article 8(2) and whether they would meet the Convention standards of legality and proportionality. In relation to proportionality, it is argued that the foundational basis for restrictions on assisted dying imposed on both the general and prison populations derives from the concept of human dignity, a concept which is also fundamental to prisoners’ rights. Under the banner of proportionality, from an initial presumption of equivalence of access to assisted dying, the article identifies certain conditions inherent in the prison situation that inevitably oppose human dignity and which provide a plausible basis for divergence. Ultimately, it is concluded that an absolute bar on provision of access to assisted dying in prisons cannot be justified, but that the factors that undermine dignity in prison could justify a degree of divergence from creation of equivalence between the prison and the non-prison populations in terms of such access.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Law International
Medical Law International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信