European Court: Assisted Suicide Not a Human Right

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

Article: 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 not 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).