Reuniting Human Rights and Bioethics to Address End-of-Life Medical Futility Disputes

The issue of decisions made at the end of life relating to the so-called “Right to death”, “death in dignity”, which in the literature on the subject is referred to as end-of-life decision making in the legal and medical space, arouses the interest of lawyers and doctors, and due to the specific gravity of the topic, it is also the subject of public debate. This article presents the issue of end-of-life decision making in health care in the light of the standards of the Council of Europe. The main purpose of the problem outlined in this way will be to analyze the legal admissibility of decisions concerning the end of life at the request of the interested person in the legal and human perspective. The summary indicates that despite the lack of a consensus in contemporary Europe as to the understanding of human rights, and hence the admissibility of active euthanasia and assisted suicide, the situation may change with the increasing emphasis on individual autonomy in medical law.

Download Full-text

Introductory Note

10.1093/oso/9780190848194.003.0030 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Guido Raimondi

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

End Of Life ◽

Freedom Of Expression ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Right To Life ◽

Introductory Note ◽

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽

Grand Chamber ◽

The Right ◽

Very High

In 2015 the Strasbourg Court decided many cases of legal significance. The most important were given by the Court’s Grand Chamber of the Court, which issued a total of nineteen judgments on the merits during the year. The article lists all the Grand Chamber judgments published in 2015 and mentions the relevant subject matters. The following four cases established important points of European human rights law. 1) Lambert v. France had already attained a very high media profile when it was filed with the Court in mid-2014, concerning the right to life and the end of life. 2) Perinçek v. Switzerland brought before the Court a difficult question about the limits of freedom of expression, concerning in particular freedom of expression and the denial of genocide. 3) Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, and Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan concerned the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Grand Chamber decided to hear these cases in parallel considering in particular: (i) the extraterritorial jurisdiction—Armenian jurisdiction over Azen territory and (ii) the presumption of jurisdiction over the entire national territory.

Download Full-text

9. The end of life

10.1093/he/9780198871354.003.0009 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 156-176

Author(s):

Jo Samanta ◽

Ash Samanta

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

End Of Life ◽

Assisted Suicide ◽

Ethical Issues ◽

Assisted Death ◽

Sanctity Of Life ◽

Human Rights Act ◽

Human Rights Act 1998 ◽

Mental Capacity Act

This chapter deals with key legal and ethical issues surrounding end-of-life decisions, with particular reference to physician-assisted death, such as euthanasia. Suicide and assisted suicide, administration of pain relief, and futility are considered. Relevant legislation such as the Suicide Act 1961 (as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009), the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are discussed. The chapter examines several bioethical principles, including sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life debates; autonomy, beneficence, and medical paternalism; personhood, palliative care, and the double effect doctrine. Finally, it considers human rights issues, treatment requests, incompetent patients, prolonged disorders of consciousness, and locked-in syndrome. Recent cases are considered.

Download Full-text