The right to life at the end of life: A note on Mortier v Belgium App No. 78017/17, 4 October 2022
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Mortier v Belgium, delivered in October 2022, is the first time the Court has squarely confronted the issue of whether permitting assisted dying is compatible with a state’s obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case, brought by the son of a woman who had been euthanised, was based predominantly on the argument that the Belgian system of assisted dying failed to adequately protect the lives of vulnerable individuals, such as the applicant’s mother. A majority of the Court held that a perm... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | Artikel |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2023 |
Reihe/Periodikum: | Medical Law International ; volume 24, issue 2, page 128-141 ; ISSN 0968-5332 2047-9441 |
Verlag/Hrsg.: |
SAGE Publications
|
Sprache: | Englisch |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-28954903 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/09685332231172755 |
The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Mortier v Belgium, delivered in October 2022, is the first time the Court has squarely confronted the issue of whether permitting assisted dying is compatible with a state’s obligation to protect life under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case, brought by the son of a woman who had been euthanised, was based predominantly on the argument that the Belgian system of assisted dying failed to adequately protect the lives of vulnerable individuals, such as the applicant’s mother. A majority of the Court held that a permissive assisted dying regime could comply with the positive obligation to protect under Article 2, provided there are safeguards in place including a system capable of ensuring that an individual’s request for assistance is freely made and informed, as well as a posteriori control in the form of supervision of compliance with the legislative and regulatory safeguards. While there were deficiencies in the Belgian system’s a posteriori control which led to a finding of a violation of Article 2, the judgment clearly demonstrates that states can permit assisted dying without violating their protective obligations under Article 2. Significantly, the Court did not consider that permitting assisted dying for individuals whose suffering emanates from a non-terminal condition (including a mental illness) was problematic from a Convention perspective. The judgment is likely to be of considerable interest to policy makers, legislators, medical practitioners, and campaigners in the increasing number of jurisdictions both within the Council of Europe and beyond, that are considering whether to legalise assisted dying and, if so, the parameters of such a regime.