In his study, Gábor Attila Tóth presents the consequentialist and deontological ethical principles for and against voluntary euthanasia, which influence legislative and judicial decision-making worldwide. While the principles of personal autonomy and quality of life are in favour of euthanasia, the sanctity of life and slippery slope arguments call for a ban on euthanasia, or, in a moderate version, for strict restrictions. The study addresses the problem of scarce resources, which the author argues is inseparable from euthanasia: prohibition and poor health conditions may lead to the most serious violations of human dignity. A case study demonstrates that the ECtHR's reasoning that the state's duty to protect life justifies a ban on euthanasia in Hungary is flawed. On the contrary, by depriving basic health resources, the state is failing to fulfil its obligation to actively ensure fundamental rights, while denying individual fundamental rights.
Judit Sándor's article seeks to answer the question of how human dignity can be maintained and protected until the end of life, recognising and accepting that, while death is part of every human destiny, the way in which we die and experience it can be very different. Why is it that in some countries end-of-life decisions are seen as a natural part of patients' rights, while in others the last stage of life remains taboo, and the dignity of the person who is dying is seen as the least important, rather than the vulnerable patient as a group, or the patient's fate is decided over his or her shoulder, according to external considerations and interests? What are the prerequisites for a stronger respect for the right to self-determination in end-of-life decisions? If the will of the deceased is sacred, why not the self-determination of the incurable patient? Is post-mortem self-determination of property more important than the patient's wishes in the last stage of life? In Hungary, there has long been a debate about death with dignity, and opinion polls at different times have shown that people want to decide for themselves whether or not to have medical treatment at the end of life. The polls also show that many people also want active help to hasten death if suffering cannot be alleviated. Yet, when it comes to legislation in Europe, coyness, caution or just plain avoidance prevails, especially in the former socialist countries.
Zoltán J. Tóth and Dávid Köbel analyse the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 26 Febraury 2020, in which the Court asserted that the general personality right guaranteed in the German Basic Law includes the decision of the individuals to end their lifes.
Judit Zeller analyzes the recent decisions of the German and Austrian constitutional courts on assisted suicide and highlights the importance of justifying the extension of end-of-life autonomy based on legal arguments alone.
The article by Mihály Filó examines the Austrian Constitutional Court's decision regarding the decriminalization of assisted suicide, envising the potential modification of the relevant Hungarian legislation.
The article by Péter Stánicz and Flóra Kollarics offers a critical analysis of the Karsai case, a decision made by the European Court of Human Rights regarding physician-assisted death. The authors discuss key legal issues related to the case, including discrimination among incurable patients, patient autonomy, and palliative care.
Sándor Kőmüves, by discussing two landmark judicial decisions, addresses how Medical Assistance in Dying [MAiD] has become legalized in Canada.
- 144/145 -
As a result of the Strasbourg case brought by Dániel Karsai, end-of-life decisions have once again come to the forefront of public attention. Because of the fundamental rights relevance and importance of the issue, the editors provided a platform for academic reflection on end-of-life decisions. Legislation and jurisprudence can be approached from different angles. ■
Visszaugrás
