European Court: Assisted Suicide Not a Human Right

This article was published by National Review online on June 13, 2024.

Court rules: There is not right to assisted suicide in Europe (Link).

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Back in 1997, the euthanasia movement tried to gain an assisted-suicide Roe v. Wade. It didn’t work out. The Supreme Court instead ruled in Glucksberg v. Washington 9–0 that there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide, which, in a delicious irony, became the primary precedent applied in Dobbs to overturn Roe.

At the same time, the high court also ruled that refusing life-sustaining treatment is not the same thing as suicide in Vacco v. Quill. In other words, “pulling the plug” is allowing nature to take its course and not self-killing.

Now, some 27 years later, the European Court of Human Rights has issued a similar ruling. In a case brought by an ALS patient who wants to die, the court decided instead that countries can outlaw assisted suicide (PAD, physician-assisted death) without violating the human rights of the terminally ill and, moreover, that self-killing is not the same thing as refusing or withdrawing life-sustaining medical treatment (RWI). From Karsai v. Hungary:

The Court further notes that it has found it justified for Hungary to maintain an absolute ban on assisted suicide, on account, among other aspects, of the risks of abuse involved in the provision of PAD, which may extend beyond those involved in RWI…the potential broader social implications of PAD; the policy choices involved in its provision…; and the considerable margin of appreciation afforded to the States in this respect.

Similar cogent reasons exist under Article 14 for justifying the allegedly different treatment of those terminally ill patients who are dependent on life-sustaining treatment and those patients who are not, and who in consequence cannot hasten their death by refusing such treatment. The Court would note in this connection that, in contrast to the situation with regard to PAD, the majority of the member States allow RWI… Furthermore, as mentioned above, the right to refuse or withdraw consent to interventions in the health field is recognised also in the Oviedo Convention, which, in contrast, does not safeguard any interests with regard to PAD.

The Court therefore considers that the alleged difference in treatment of the aforementioned two groups of terminally ill patients is objectively and reasonably justified.

This is excellent news. But the court did not rule — as Glucksberg did not about states — that countries cannot legalize assisted suicide or euthanasia.

This puts the issue squarely in the democratic sphere. Hence, it is up to us to prevent the death agenda’s spread.

Court rules: There is no right to assisted suicide in Europe.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

The European Court of Human Rights ruled (6 to 1) that under human rights law, there is no right to assisted suicide in Europe. 

The Irish Legal News reported on June 13 that:

Dániel Karsai, a prominent human rights lawyer in Budapest, Hungary, unsuccessfully argued that the criminalisation of physician-assisted dying (PAD) violated his rights under Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Karsai was challenging the Hungarian law prohibiting assisted suicide at the European Court of Human Rights. The Irish Legal News reported:

Under Hungarian law, anyone assisting him would risk prosecution, even if he died in a country which allows physician-assisted dying. He complained to the ECtHR of not being able to end his life with the help of others and of discrimination compared to terminally ill patients on life-sustaining treatment who are able to ask for their treatment to be withdrawn.

In today’s Chamber judgment, the court observed that there were potentially broad social implications and risks of error and abuse involved in the provision of physician-assisted dying.

The Court found that proper end-of-life care provides a dignified death and that withdrawal of treatment is different than assisting someone to die. The Irish Legal News reported:

The court considered that high-quality palliative care, including access to effective pain management, was essential to ensuring a dignified end of life.

According to the expert evidence heard by the court, the available options in palliative care, including the use of palliative sedation, were generally able to provide relief to patients in the applicant’s situation and allow them to die peacefully. Mr Karsai had not alleged that such care would be unavailable to him.

As regards the alleged discrimination, the court found that the refusal or withdrawal of treatment in end-of-life situations was intrinsically linked to the right to free and informed consent, rather than to a right to be helped to die.

This is widely recognised and endorsed by the medical profession, and also laid down in the Council of Europe’s Oviedo Convention. Furthermore, refusal or withdrawal of life-support was allowed by the majority of the member states. The court therefore considered that the alleged difference in treatment was objectively and reasonably justified.

Jean-Paul Van De Walle at
European Court of Human Rights

ADF International, along with UK-based NGO Care Not Killing, intervened in the case of Karsai v. Hungary, stated in their media release that:

In its decision, the Court affirmed that prohibition of assisted suicide is in line with the country’s obligations under international law to protect life. Additionally, as the court pointed out, “the majority of the Council of Europe’s member States continue to prohibit” euthanasia and related practices (§ 165).

“We applaud today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights, which upholds Hungary’s essential human rights protections. Although we deeply empathize with Mr. Karsai’s condition and support his right to receive the best care and relief possible, it is clear from other jurisdictions that a right to die quickly becomes a duty to die. Instead of abandoning our most vulnerable citizens, society should do all it can to provide the best standards of care,” said Jean-Paul Van De Walle, Legal Counsel for ADF International.

ADF explained how legalizing assisted suicide leads to abuses of the law.

“Worldwide, only a tiny minority of countries allow assisted suicide. Wherever the practice is allowed, legal ‘safeguards’ are insufficient to prevent abuses, proving most harmful to vulnerable members of society, including the elderly, the disabled, and those suffering from mental illness or depression. Suicide is something society rightly considers a tragedy to be prevented and the same must apply to assisted suicide. Care, not killing must be the goal we all strive towards,” Van De Walle explained.

ADF explained that the court ruled that refusal and withdrawal of treatment is different than assisting a suicide.

As regards the alleged discrimination, the court found that the refusal or withdrawal of treatment in end-of-life situations was intrinsically linked to the right to free and informed consent, rather than to a right to be helped to die.

This is widely recognised and endorsed by the medical profession, and also laid down in the Council of Europe’s Oviedo Convention. Furthermore, refusal or withdrawal of life-support was allowed by the majority of the member states. The court therefore considered that the alleged difference in treatment was objectively and reasonably justified.

More articles on this topic:

• Hungary opposes assisted suicide (Link).
• Assisted suicide ban challenged at Europe's top human rights court (Link).

A Warning from Canada to Hungary about Euthanasia

Dear Hungarians,

Amanda Achtman

I visited your country this time last year and was deeply impressed and inspired by it. Now that I hear Hungary is considering legalizing euthanasia, I must issue a warning to you about this from my home country of Canada.

Canada legalized euthanasia nationwide in 2016. Since then, with the criteria expanded and safeguards eroded, euthanasia now accounts for 4.1% of all deaths and is the fifth leading cause of death.

In fact, the number of Canadians who have died by euthanasia since legalization is commensurate with the total number of Canadians who died of Covid.

Having monitored the debate and expansion of euthanasia closely for the past several years, I have some important information to share with you that will hopefully prevent Hungary from going down the same path.

Euthanasia will not be limited.

Initially, euthanasia was legalized for those whose deaths were deemed “reasonably foreseeable.” Patients were required to have a “grievous and irremediable” condition. But soon, this was seen as discriminatory against those who were suffering but not imminently dying. And so, a second track (literally named “Track 2”) was created to qualify for euthanasia those whose deaths were not imminent. Initially, this was for those suffering from physical pain but then this was seen as discriminatory against those who were suffering from psychological pain. So, euthanasia was expanded to those not imminently dying and to those with psychological suffering rather than physical all under the rubric of equality. As long as euthanasia is seen as a reasonable solution to suffering, then there is no limit as to who should quality for this relief. For this reason, euthanasia activists have advised euthanasia for children who, when speaking before parliamentary committess, they refer to as “mature minors.” As soon as euthanasia is seen as a good for society and for suffering persons, any rationale to limit it will be arbitrary and considered unjust by at least some of those who are excluded by the criteria.

Euthanasia will undermine suicide prevention efforts.

Though we have gone through many euphemisms, nothing can change the reality that euthanasia is simply suicide with an accomplice. The euthanasia lobby stopped using the terms euthanasia and assisted suicide because it is bad for public relations. And so, we have gone from “euthanasia” to “assisted suicide” to “physician-assisted suicide” to “medical aid in dying.” Now in law, politics, and journalism, the English acronym for the latter is used universally. This deadens people’s consciences so that they do not realize that premature killing is precisely what is meant by “MAID.” As George Orwell said, “As language corrupts thought, so thought also corrupts language.” Many people who work in palliative care believe that palliative care is the true assistance in dying; they would never dream of killing their patients. But now, these lines are becoming blurred. Unfortunately, we now have a two-tier society where some people get suicide prevention and others get suicide assistance. This is terribly unjust because everyone deserves suicide prevention.

Euthanasia will devalue the lives of people with disabilities.

Many people with whom I speak tell me they think euthanasia is reasonable for persons with a certain illness or disability. They will usually name a particular condition that, in their mind, justifies premature death. Yet, even if they would say that euthanasia should never be coerced, suggesting that there is any threshold at which a person’s life is not worth living denigrates their life and sends the message that their life is less valuable. Furthermore, many persons with disabilities attest that they are being de facto coerced to consider euthanasia due to lack of adequate supports to live. I cannot stand by idly when my fellow citizens with disabilities attest that they are tempted to seek euthanasia because they lack housing, money for food, accesibility provisions, or even family, friends, or visitors who care about them. This is clearly an urgent cry for help, not death.

Euthanasia will threaten the doctor-patient relationship.

When a doctor raises euthanasia with a patient, it already deflates them. Simply put, it is dehumanizing to tell someone that they qualify to die. In Canada, many advocates tried to ensure that euthanasia would only ever be patient-initiated. At least, this way, patients would not be counselled to consider suicide in a moment of weakness, vulnerability, or pain. But now it is the complete opposite. Doctors are being compelled to present “MAID” as an option to all eligible patients which, as you can see, is many of them. Even if someone does not choose euthanasia for themselves, it takes a toll to even have it suggested or to know that the phsyician has euthanized other patients or referred them to their deaths. This makes it harder to trust that the doctor will truly do everything for the sake of preserving health. Euthanasia is an easy way out and, since it is legal and commonplace, there is next to no investigation of the abuses which often leaves grieving family members traumatized.

Euthanasia will cut short our opportunities to love.

Premature death cuts short the capacity to show and receive kindness in the world. Every euthanasia death short circuits our opportunities to love. And if someone is asking for euthanasia because they do not feel loved in first place, then the right response is not lazy indifference (sometimes masqueraded as “support”) but rather a loving and urgent intervention. Those who are in need make an appeal to us. It is so important that we do not miss the opportunity to respond to them. It is the very basis of our humanity to be responsible in this way -- to care and be cared for.

To avoid descending into a euthanasia society, my recommendations are to:

1. Provide the supports that people across diverse demographics need to live.
2. Bolster self-harm and suicide prevention efforts across all generations.
3. Work toward ever-better inclusion of persons with disabilities.
4. Insist on the role of doctor as healer, not killer.
5. Affirm the value of those suffering and caregiving heroically by letting them know that it’s good they exist. Notice the challenge that it is to suffer, die, and caregive well and praise those who are doing it for their courage.

Through promoting these actions and attitudes, we can create a society where dying naturally is not shameful or “undignified”, but rather a supreme occasion for realizing what is significant in life. All of this is what the dying person deserves. And for all of us, one day that dying person will be us.

Amanda Achtman recently served as the senior advisor to a Canadian parliamentarian working to prevent the expansion of euthanasia on the basis of disability and mental illness. She currently works with Canadian Physicians for Life on ethics education and cultural engagement. Amanda is also the founder of Dying to Meet You, a project dedicated to preventing euthanasia and encouraging hope.

@AmandaAchtman / DyingToMeetYou.com

Hungary's government opposes assisted suicide

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Dániel Karsai, an Hungarian who lives with a progressive neurodegenerative condition, brought a case to European Court of Human Rights this week to challenge Hungary's laws prohibiting euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Daily News Hungary reported on November 29, 2023 that the Hungarian government intervened in the case by opposing any changes to their laws. According to Daily News Hungary the Hungarian Justice Ministry told the European Court of Human Rights that:

The ministry said Hungary considered "unacceptable" all decisions and aspirations which "enable others to end a person's life".

The ministry cited Article 2 of Hungary's constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary's constitution nor international law, including the ECHR guarantee the right to die, it argued.

The Karsai case has been promoted by the euthanasia lobby and at least one assisted suicide group in Switzerland.

Previous article: Assisted suicide ban challenged at Europe's top human rights court (Link).

guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

The ECtHR heard experts in the Karsai v. Hungary case on Monday and Tuesday, with the justice ministry representing Hungary. The ministry said Hungary considered “unacceptable” all decisions and aspirations which “enable others to end a person’s life”. The ministry cited Article 2 of Hungary’s constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

The ECtHR heard experts in the Karsai v. Hungary case on Monday and Tuesday, with the justice ministry representing Hungary. The ministry said Hungary considered “unacceptable” all decisions and aspirations which “enable others to end a person’s life”. The ministry cited Article 2 of Hungary’s constitution and Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantee the right to life. At the same time, neither Hungary’s constitution nor international law, including the ECHR, guarantee the right to die, it argued. The statement said the “fulfilment of dignity and its preservation” were not a political issue or a matter of worldview, but a fundamental right which could not override the sanctity of life. “The protection of life is primary in Christian culture, including in Hungary,” it added. The ministry said assisted suicide left room for “numerous forms of abuse”, stressing Hungary’s position that “no one can take another’s life for any reason”.
Please use the sharing tools at the bottom of the articles. Copying articles for sharing with others is a breach of the Daily News Hungary Copyright Policy. To purchase additional rights, email info@dailynewshungary.com. Source: dailynewshungary.com https://dailynewshungary.com/hungary-will-legalize-euthanasia/

Assisted suicide ban challenged at Europe's top human rights court

The following press release is from ADF International on November 28, 2023.

• Dániel Karsai, Hungarian national suffering from progressive neurodegenerative condition, seeks legalization of assisted suicide in Hungary before European Court of Human Rights in oral hearing today.
•  ADF International intervenes, arguing that Hungary is obligated to protect the right to life; there is no “right to die”.
  

Strasbourg (28 November 2023) – Hungarian national Dániel Karsai, diagnosed with a progressive neurodegenerative condition, brought his challenge to Hungary’s ban on assisted suicide before the European Court of Human Rights today. Assisted suicide is illegal under Hungarian law, as in the overwhelming majority of countries.

ADF International intervened in the case of Karsai v. Hungary, arguing that Hungary’s legal prohibition on assisted suicide must be upheld in line with the obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2) to protect the right to life.

In its submission to the Court, the legal advocacy organization highlights the inevitable abuses that ensue when legal protections for the right to life are eradicated. The brief explains: “Removing such provisions from law creates a dangerous scenario where pressure is placed on vulnerable people to end their lives in fear (whether or not justified) of being a burden upon relatives, carers, or a state that is short of resources.”

“We cannot abandon our essential human rights protections.”

“While Mr. Karsai’s condition demands our greatest compassion, we cannot abandon our essential human rights protections. Hungary is bound under European and international human rights law to safeguard human life,” stated Jean-Paul Van De Walle, Legal Counsel for ADF International, present at the Court’s oral hearing in Strasbourg on 28 November.

“The right to life is inviolable, underlying all other human rights. Conversely, there is no so-called ‘right to die’. Worldwide, only a tiny minority of countries allow assisted suicide. Wherever the practice is allowed, legal ‘safeguards’ are insufficient to prevent abuses, proving most harmful to vulnerable members of society, including the elderly, the disabled, and those suffering from mental illness or depression. And assisted suicide inevitably results in human rights-violating coercion on medical professionals and others to end human life. Suicide is something society rightly considers a tragedy to be prevented, and the same stance must apply with regard to assisted suicide. Killing someone can never be the solution,” continued Van De Walle.

The Court, which granted this case priority, is expected to deliver its decision on an expedited timeline.

Seeking a “right” to die

Karsai, 46, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), wishes to resort to assisted suicide before his physical condition further deteriorates. It is a criminal offence in Hungary to help somebody end their life, whether the act is committed in Hungary or abroad. Mr. Karsai maintains that even if he were to die by assisted suicide outside of Hungary, the Hungarian Criminal Code would apply to anyone assisting him.

Safeguarding the right to life

ADF International, along with UK-based NGO Care Not Killing, has highlighted to the Court that there is no so-called “right to die” but, in fact, a clear right to life. This position, in line with both European and international human rights law, underscores the dangers that would ensue from forcing Hungary to allow assisted suicide, highlighting that the intentional taking of human life can never be safe.

The European Court of Human Rights also recognised these dangers in the October 2022 ruling in Mortier v. Belgium, in which the applicant was represented by ADF International. In this case, the Court found that Belgium violated the right to life in the circumstances surrounding the euthanasia of Godelieva De Troyer. The Court condemned Belgium because of “the lack of independence of the Control Commission,” which for over twenty years has presided over the practice of euthanasia in Belgium and supposedly acts as the ‘guardian’ of the legal safeguards.

As stated in the Karsai submission: “Despite alleged ‘safeguards’ and a ‘strict’ legal framework, young adults are euthanised because of ‘incurable depression,’ elderly people because of symptoms related to ageing, prisoners because of lack of access to appropriate mental health care or because of psychological suffering, twins because of becoming blind – to mention only some examples, among many others”.

Legalisation leads to abuses

Of the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, only six have legalized assisted suicide. The practice has been rejected by legislators in the vast majority of countries.

The World Medical Association consistently and categorically has rejected the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide as unethical. Countries that have legalized euthanasia now allow the intentional killing of children, those who are physically healthy, and those who have not given their consent.

In Resolution 1859 (2012), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated unequivocally that: “Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.”

“Once we as a society open the doors to intentional killing, there is no logical stopping point. How do we distinguish between the person we talk down from the bridge and the person we let die at the hands of their doctor? The state has an obligation to protect the fundamental value of human life, and we cannot set in motion legal changes that undermine this obligation to the detriment of all of society,” noted Van De Walle.