Problem setting. Increasingly, European countries are legalizing euthanasia nationally. At the same time, this issue is a circle for scientific debate, as some experts believe that it is a natural human right that can be disposed of at its discretion. Others emphasize that no one can interrupt a person’s life, even herself. In order to summarize all positions and to determine unanimity on certain aspects of euthanasia, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the European Convention of Human Rights, which in art. 2 proclaims the right to life and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which has argued for the possibility of a “right to die” as part of the right to life.
The purpose. Analysis of the legal position of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the possibility of applying the euthanasia procedure, exploring the prospects of introducing this procedure into the national law.
Analysis of recent research and publications. The problem of euthanasia is a matter of debate in the scientific community. This topic was researched by А.В. Malko, AS Nikiforova, O.V Khomchenko, I.O Koval, O.M Mironets, O.A Miroshnichenko, Yu.S. Romashova, K. Basovskaya, Yu.M. Rybakova, O.M Shchokin, S.V Chernichenko.
Article’s main body. In science will distinguish 2 types of euthanasia - active and passive. Active euthanasia involves actions aimed at ending the life of a sick person, for example, by administering a lethal injection. Passive euthanasia involves discontinuation of medical care for a patient at his will, which in the future leads to death. Considering the issue of passive euthanasia, the European Commission concluded that it could not be interpreted art. 2 of the Convention as such, which gives the right to death, but everyone has the right to dispose of his life by giving appropriate instructions in the event of an incurable disease.. The issue of the “right to die”, the right to active euthanasia has been resolved in the case of Pritty v. The United Kingdom. The European Court of Human Rights in this case was not convinced that the “right to life” guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention could be interpreted negatively. As for Ukraine, euthanasia in our country is being prosecuted and considered a crime. In particular, according to the Fundamentals of Healthcare Legislation, medical professionals are prohibited from taking deliberate actions aimed at ending the life of a patient who is terminally ill to end his or her suffering. The Civil Code of Ukraine contains a similar warning about the prohibition to deprive a person of his life at his request.
Conclusions.The European Court of Human Rights does not consider that the content of art. 2 of the Convention it is possible to derive the “right to die”. This right does not come from the right not life, is not an independent right, can not be a fundamental right, to which all the guarantees of art. 2 of the Convention. With regard to passive euthanasia, the ECtHR does not, in fact, prohibit it; it proceeds from the human right to dispose of one’s life. Speaking about the introduction of the euthanasia procedure in the national legal order, the ECtHR did not give a clear assessment on this issue. In fact, the ECtHR has taken the position that it is not entitled to assess national legislation in terms of introducing effective mechanisms to protect their citizens’ right to life.
Housing as a Human Right within an Era of International Exceptionalism
