THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO DEATH AND THE RIGHT TO DIGNIFIED DEATH

Keywords: death, dignified death, protection, right, person, European Court of Human Rights.

Abstract

In the context of the disclosure of the subject of research both to achieve the goal of scientific research and to ensure the completeness, objectivity, reliability and persuasiveness of the results, the author used a set of general and special methods that are characteristic of legal science. In particular, the origin and long historical path of development of these human rights were studied with the help of the historical method. Using a system-structural method formulated the general structure of the study, and dialectical - analyzed the provisions of law and case law on the specifics of the right to die. Using a comparative legal method, the legislation of foreign countries was analyzed, which provided an opportunity to use their positive experience in terms of analysis of the right to death.

This article reveals the scientific approaches of researchers to determine the nature of death, the right to die, the right to a dignified death, to identify their features and to distinguish between them. The paper analyzes ways to protect the right to die. Part of the work is devoted to the analysis of the law enforcement practice of the European Court of Human Rights, both in general on the possibility and expediency of the existence of certain criteria for restricting the right to life.

Based on the study, it is concluded that death and the right to die, the right to die and the right to a dignified death are correlated as primary and secondary, ie the right to die includes all these concepts. They cannot exist without each other. In different countries they are interpreted differently, but the main thing is the free will of a person to die who has an incurable disease. It is argued that it is best to use the term right to a dignified death. It is noted that a significant number of foreign countries provide for the right to die and euthanasia.

In the context of the disclosure of the subject of research both to achieve the goal of scientific research and to ensure the completeness, objectivity, reliability and persuasiveness of the results, the author used a set of general and special methods that are characteristic of legal science. In particular, the origin and long historical path of development of these human rights were studied with the help of the historical method. Using a system-structural method formulated the general structure of the study, and dialectical - analyzed the provisions of law and case law on the specifics of the right to die. Using a comparative legal method, the legislation of foreign countries was analyzed, which provided an opportunity to use their positive experience in terms of analysis of the right to death.

This article reveals the scientific approaches of researchers to determine the nature of death, the right to die, the right to a dignified death, to identify their features and to distinguish between them. The paper analyzes ways to protect the right to die. Part of the work is devoted to the analysis of the law enforcement practice of the European Court of Human Rights, both in general on the possibility and expediency of the existence of certain criteria for restricting the right to life.

Based on the study, it is concluded that death and the right to die, the right to die and the right to a dignified death are correlated as primary and secondary, ie the right to die includes all these concepts. They cannot exist without each other. In different countries they are interpreted differently, but the main thing is the free will of a person to die who has an incurable disease. It is argued that it is best to use the term right to a dignified death. It is noted that a significant number of foreign countries provide for the right to die and euthanasia.

The right to die "follows" from the right to life. However, the concepts of "life" and "right to life" are complex and very ambiguous categories that provoke a lively social and scientific discussion, the content and nature, in particular the legal nature, the right to die, seem even more ambiguous. The question of death has long been considered by various sciences, philosophy, psychology, law. Every year, various scientists raise the issue of the right to die or the human right to a dignified death in scientific circles. Among modern philosophers, the issue of death is, for example, Shelley Kagan, who took a course at Yale University. Everyone has a different attitude to death, someone denies the existence of the right to die at all, someone claims that a person has the right to decide for himself the question of his death (suicide) or to receive help to die with dignity.

The purpose of this article is to study the relationship between the right to die and the right to a dignified death, their place in the legal system of Ukraine and European countries. Defining their essence, the ratio of these concepts, disclosing their features, as well as the experience of the European Court of Human Rights in their protection and implementation.

If the basis for exercising the right to life is exhaustive, then in this case the goal of health care cannot be achieved, because the application of medical care to the patient only exacerbates his suffering. The right to life provides the opportunity to independently dispose of life, ie to expose it to significant risk (stuntman), to voluntarily decide on the timing and methods of its termination (suicide) - the right to die. However, this right will never be enshrined in law. In India, by contrast, by 2017, a failed suicide attempt was considered a crime under Article 309 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860, and was punishable by simple imprisonment for up to one year (or a fine, or both). On April 7, 2017, the Indian Mental Health Act came into force, suicide is a psychiatric problem and not a manifestation of criminal instinct, there is a presumption of severe stress in the event of a suicide attempt, i.e. any person attempting suicide is considered if not proved another that is under great stress and is not punishable.

References

Prakriti. Suicide Law In India. 2020. URL: http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/ article-1423-suicide-law-in-india.html

Koval´ov M. I. Pravo na zhyttya i pravo na smert´. Radyans´ka derzhava i pravo. 1992. № 7. S. 68–72.

Diganth Raj Sehgal. Does Right to Life include Right to Die? 2019. URL: https:// blog.ipleaders.in/does-right-to-life-include-right-to-die/

Kontseptsiya onovlennya Tsyvil´noho kodeksu Ukrayiny. Kyyiv: Vydavnychyy dim «ArtEk», 2020. 128 s.

Rabone and another (Appellants) v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent). 2012. URL: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2010-0140.html

Sam Holford. There is a right to life; is there a right to die? The New Zealand Medical Student Journal. 2012. N. 16. Р. 25. URL: http://www.nzmsj.com/ uploads/3/1/8/4/31845897/16_feature2.pdf

Sullivan W. F. Is there a right to die? URL: https://christusliberat.org/journal/ wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Right-to-Life-3-Dec-18_web.pdf 57

D´ord´ V.V., Zaborovs´kyy V.V. Chy povynno buty pravo na smert´ v Ukrayini? Zakarpats´ki pravovi chytannya. T. 1. S. 250–257. URL: https://dspace.uzhnu.edu.ua/jspui/ bitstream/lib/14182/1/pdf

Pieroth, Bodo – Schlink, Bernhard: Grundrechte Staatsrecht II. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 2011. P. 97.

Schulze-Fielitz, Helmuth: Art. 2. Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit. In: DREIER, Horst: Grundgesetz Kommentar I. Tübingen: Mohr siebeck, 2004, P. 346–397.

Lorenz, Dieter: 128 Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrheit. In: Isensee, Josef – Kirchhof, Paul: Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (HdSdBD) VI. 2000. Р. 3–39.

Dreier Horst: Grenzen des Tötungsverbotes – Teil 2. Juristen Zeitung (JZ). 2007. № 7. P. 317–326.

Dr. Zakariás Kinga Rita. Az emberi méltósághoz való alapjog Összehasonlító jogi elemzés a német és magyar alkotmánybírósági gyakorlat tükrében Doktori értekezés. Budapest, 2017. 310 s.

Vorona V. Pravo na evtanaziyu yak skladova prava lyudyny na zhyttya. Pravo Ukrayiny. 2010. № 5. S. 202. URL: http://www.info-pressa.com/article-392.html

Dombrovs´ka O. Pravo na smert´: paradoks chy neobkhidna umova demokratych- noho suspil´stva? Visnyk Khmel´nyts´koho instytutu rehional´noho upravlinnya ta prava. 2002. № 1. S. 48–49.

Malinovs’kiy A. A. Imeyet li chelovek pravo na smert’? Rossiyskaya yustitsiya. 2002. № 8. S. 54.

Benatar D. Should there be a legal right to die? Current Oncology. 2010. № 5(15). Р. 2.

Kolodiy A. M., Oliynyk A. Yu. Prava, svobody ta obov’yazky lyudyny i hromadyanyna v Ukrayini : рidruchnyk. Kyiv: Vseukrayins´ka asotsiatsiya vydavtsiv «Pravova yednist´», 2008. 350 s.

Pro zastosuvannya transplantatsiyi anatomichnykh materialiv lyudyni : Zakon Ukrayiny vid 17.05.2018 № 2427-VIII. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2427- 19#Text

Osnovy zakonodavstva Ukrayiny pro okhoronu zdorov’ya : Zakon Ukrayiny vid 19.11.1992 № 2801-XII. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2801-12#Text

Lavrik M. A. K teorii somaticheskiy prav cheloveka. Sibirskiy yuridicheskiy vestnik. 2005. № 3. S. 22.

Fomichev Ye. K. Evtanaziya kak forma realizatsii prava na smert’: Obshche- teoreticheskiy aspekt : avtoref. dis. … kand. yur. nauk. Tambov, 2006. URL: https://www.dissercat.com/content/evtanaziya-kak-forma-realizatsii-prava-na- smertobshcheteoreticheskii-aspekt

Stefanchuk R. O. Osobysti nemaynovi prava fizychnykh osib (ponyattya, zmist, systema, osoblyvosti zdiysnennya ta zakhystu) : monohrafiya. Kyiv: KNT, 2007. 625 s.

Buletsa S.B. Pravovi pytannya eutanaziyi. Derzhava i pravo. Yurydychni i politychni nauky. 2004. Vyp. 26. S. 359–364.

Buletsa S.B. Osoblyvosti evtanaziyi v Yaponiyi ta Pivdenniy Koreyi. Porivnyal´no-analitychne pravo. 2019. № 2. S.64-69. URL: http://www.pap.in.ua/2_2019/16.pdf

Buletsa S.B. Osoblyvosti evtanaziyi v Kytayi, Honkonhu ta Tayvani. Visegrad Journal on Human Rights. 2019. № 3. Ch. 1. P. 41–47.

Punda O. O. Pravo na zhyttya. Visnyk Khmel´nyts´koho instytutu rehional´noho upravlinnya ta prava. 2003. № 2. S. 63.

Starko O. Ponyattya ta zmist prava na zhyttya. Istoryko-pravovyy chasopys. 2013. № 1. C. 55–59.

Ivanova N. A. Pravo na evtanaziyu: otechestvennyy i zarubezhnyy opyt. Vestnik Saratovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii. 2013. № 5 (94). S. 69.

Proyekt kontseptsíї onovlennya tsivíl’nogo kodeksu Ukraíїni. Kyiv, 2020. S. 99.

Leiby R. Whose Death Is It Anyway? The Kevorkian Debate. It’s a Matter of Faith, In the End. Washington Post. 1996. August 11. Sec. Style. P. F1.

Koval´ I. M. Kontrmira evtanaziyi – paliatyvne likuvannya. Visnyk sotsial´noyi hihiyeny ta orhanizatsiyi okhorony zdorov’ya Ukrayiny. 2015. № 3 (65). S. 54–58.

Kovács J. Az eutanázia etikai dilemmái. Magyar Tudomány. 1996. № 7. O. 791–809.

Antal F. Az élet és halál bioetikai kérdései. Belügyi Szemle. 2001. № 1. O. 3–21.

Blasszauer B. Orvosi etika. Budapest: Medicina Könyvkiadó Rt., 1995. 260 o.

Author Biography

S. B. Buletsa, Uzhhorod National University

Head of the Department of Civil Law and Procedure
Doctor of Science of Law, Professor Uzhhorod National University
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9216-0033
sibilla.buletsa@uzhnu.edu.ua

Published
2021-02-22
How to Cite
Buletsa, S. B. (2021). THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE RIGHT TO DEATH AND THE RIGHT TO DIGNIFIED DEATH. Medicne Pravo, (1(27), 9-18. https://doi.org/10.25040/medicallaw2021.01.009
Section
Articles