Legal qualification of euthanasia worldwide

Abstrakt

Euthanasia has been a topical issue in both legal science and practice for several years now. Addressing the legalization or prohibition of euthanasia lies at the intersection of several areas, such as medicine, law and ethics. That is why it is pretty challenging to decide whether euthanasia is acceptable in a modern civilized society.
Every country in the world has its own approach to this area. Many states prohibit euthanasia, proclaiming the importance of the right to live. Some other states consider humanism and the deprivation of human suffering to be a more important value, allowing euthanasia. Some researchers hope for scientific and technological progress, emphasizing that many diseases that have not been treated before are curable. Therefore, in their opinion, the disease incurable today, can be cured tomorrow. At the same time, euthanasia deprives a person not only of suffering, but also of hope to become healthy in the future.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe calls euthanasia a violation of the human right to life. Instead, the European Court of Human Rights argues that there is no consensus in Europe yet. Accordingly, each state can decide whether to legalize or not euthanasia.
The paper analyzes the legislation of several countries on euthanasia and the law of the Council of Europe (PACE resolutions and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights). It is concluded that there are four types of states in terms of their attitude to euthanasia: 1) allow both active and passive euthanasia; 2) allow only passive euthanasia; 3) prohibit both active and passive euthanasia; 4) do not regulate the issue of euthanasia in their legislation. It is also concluded that the formation of a pan-European standard of attitude to euthanasia is desirable.