IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/dcu/journl/v13y2019i2p172-180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Euthanasia, Pros And Cons In The Jurisprudence Of The European Court Of Human Rights

Author

Listed:
  • Mihaela Simon

Abstract

Is it possible that under the European Convention on Human Rights to have the right to decide when to end our life? The issue has been the subject of several cases dealt with by the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg, which tried to reconcile the obligation to protect the life, provided for in Article 2 of the Convention, with the right of the individual to dispose of it, guaranteed by Article 8, underlining, in all situations, the wide margin of appreciation of States concerning the regulation of human euthanasia. This paper aims to analyse, in addition to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the legal, ethical and scientific arguments that can be invoked in favour of or against euthanasia or assisted suicide. Key Words: right, life, human euthanasia, assisted suicide

Suggested Citation

  • Mihaela Simon, 2019. "Euthanasia, Pros And Cons In The Jurisprudence Of The European Court Of Human Rights," FIAT IUSTITIA, Dimitrie Cantemir Faculty of Law Cluj Napoca, Romania, vol. 13(2), pages 172-180, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:dcu:journl:v:13:y:2019:i:2:p:172-180
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fiatiustitia.ro/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/458-Article-Text-894-1-10-20200112.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    right; life; human euthanasia; assisted suicide;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K38 - Law and Economics - - Other Substantive Areas of Law - - - Human Rights Law; Gender Law; Animal Rights Law

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:dcu:journl:v:13:y:2019:i:2:p:172-180. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dimitrie Cantemir Faculty of Law Cluj Napoca, Romania (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://fiatiustitia.ro .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.