Evtanazija in pomoč pri samomoru

doktorska disertacija

Nataša Valentinčič (Author), Viktorija Žnidaršič (Mentor), Damjan Korošec (Thesis defence commission member), Vesna Rijavec (Thesis defence commission member)

Abstract

V disertaciji, upoštevaje odločbe ESČP, obravnavam tri modele formalne in dejanske pravne ureditve evtanazije in pomoči pri samomoru v vzorčnih državah posameznega modela pravne ureditve. Vsi trije modeli, nizozemski, švicarski in slovenski, temeljijo na treh osnovnih načelih, in sicer na načelu svetosti življenja, na načelu avtonomije in na načelu dobrodelnosti, vendar pa gre ugotoviti, da posamezna država daje določenemu načelu večji ali manjši pomen. Nizozemski model temelji na izključitvi kazenske in civilne odgovornosti ter določa prirejenost vseh treh načel. Izključitev kazenske in civilne odgovornosti zdravnika, za sicer splošno prepovedani ravnanji evtanazije in pomoči pri samomoru, izhaja iz instituta opravičljive skrajne sile, iz zdravnikovega konflikta dolžnosti. Odgovornost zdravnika bo izključena le v primeru, da končanje življenja izvrši zdravnik, ki izpolni zahteve po dolžni skrbnosti določene v 2. čl. Zakona o prekinitvi življenja na prošnjo in pomoči pri samomoru (postopki preiskovanja). Čeprav švicarski sistem upošteva tudi načelo svetosti življenja in načelo dobrodelnosti, sistem primarno temelji na načelu avtonomije in pravici do samoodločbe. Pravica do samoodločbe o načinu in času lastne smrti, kot del pravice do zasebnosti, je posamezniku zagotovljena na podlagi 13. čl. Švicarske zvezne ustave in 8. čl. EKČP. Nekaznivost pomoči pri samomoru zagotavlja 115. člen Švicarskega kazenskega zakonika, ki določa, da je tako ravnanje kaznivo le v primeru, če je bilo storjeno iz sebičnih namenov. Realizacijo končanja življenja s pomočjo tretjih zagotavljajo organizacije za pomoč pri samomoru in zdravniki. Načeli svetosti življenja in dobrodelnosti sta varovani z zahtevami o prosilčevi sposobnosti razsojanja ter z zahtevami po dolžni skrbnosti, ki jih določajo pravila delovanja organizacij ter zakonska in strokovno- etična pravila za izdajo zdravniškega recepta za smrtonosno učinkovino. Slovenski model poudarja in bistveno primarno izhaja iz načela svetosti življenja. Slovenski pravni sistem evtanazijo in pomoč pri samomoru prepoveduje in ju opredeljuje kot kaznivi dejanji ter kot civilni delikt. Slovenski sistem izključitve protipravnosti navedenih dejanj na podlagi instituta privolitve oškodovanca, torej na podlagi pravice do samoodločbe, ne omogoča. Teoretično je možna le izključitev krivde storilca kaznivega dejanja oz. civilnega delikta na podlagi opravičljive skrajne sile. Načeli avtonomije in dobrodelnosti se upoštevata v skrajno omejenem obsegu- le kot element presoje obstoja pogojev za sklicevanje storilca na opravičljivo skrajno silo. ESČP je v primerih Pretty, Haas, Koch in Gross posamezniku, v okviru pravice do zasebnega življenja, že priznalo pravico do samoodločbe o času in načinu končanja lastnega življenja, pri čemer je pri odločanju izhajalo iz prirejenosti in tehtanja treh načel. Načelo avtonomije (če je to potrebno tudi s pomočjo tretjih) lahko prevlada nad načelom svetosti življenja upoštevaje načelo dobrodelnosti. Odločilo je tudi, da mora biti pravni sistem, ki (tako ali drugače) dopušča končanje življenja s pomočjo tretjih, predvidljiv. Tako obseg pravic, kot tudi postopek uveljavljanja pravic, morata biti jasno določena in naslovnikom razumljiva. Upoštevaje navedena izhodišča ESČP je slovenski sitem neustrezen in bi ga bilo po mojem prepričanju, potrebno spremeniti upoštevaje rešitve preostalih dveh sistemov, zlasti nizozemskega

Keywords

evtanazija;pomoč pri samomoru;pravica do odločitve;pravica do samoodločbe;načelo svetosti življenja;načelo avtonomije;načelo dobrodelnosti;disertacije;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2016
Typology:	2.08 - Doctoral Dissertation
Organization:	UL PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[N. Valentinčič]
UDC:	179.7(043.3)
COBISS:	15692113
Views:	3494
Downloads:	1593
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Euthanasi and assisted suicide
Secondary abstract:	In this dissertation I describe three models of formal and effective legal regulation of euthanasia and assisted suicide in the sample countries taking into account the decisions of the ECtHR. All three models, the Dutch, Swiss and Slovenian, are based on three basic principles: the principle of sanctity of life, the principle of autonomy and on the principle of beneficence, but it is noted that each country gives to a particular principle greater or lesser importance. The Dutch model is based on the exclusion of criminal and civil liability and provides for the parity of the three principles. Exemption from criminal and civil liability of the doctor, for otherwise generally-prohibited acts of euthanasia and assisted suicide, results from justification of necessity, from the physician's conflict of duties. The responsibility of the assistant is excluded only if euthanasia or assisted suicide is performed by a doctor who meets the requirement of due care set in the second article of the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted suicide (Review procedures) Act. The Swiss system also takes into account the principle of the sanctity of life and the principle of beneficence, but the system is primarily based on the principle of autonomy and the right to self-determination. The individual’s right to self-determination by what means and at what point will their life end, as aspects of the right to respect for private life, is guaranteed under the article 13 of the Swiss Federal Constitution and under the article 8 of ECHR. Impunity of the assisted suicide is guaranteed under the Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code, which provides that such act is punishable only if it was committed for selfish motives. The realization of the termination of life with the help of third is provided by the Right to die organisations and physicians. Principles of sanctity of life and beneficence are protected by the provisions about decisional capacity and requirement of due care set out in RTDO's rules and medicines laws and ethical guidelines. The Slovenian model stresses and significantly primarily stems from the principle of the sanctity of life. The Slovenian legal system prohibits euthanasia and assisted suicide and defines them as criminal acts and as a tort. The Slovenian system does not allow the exclusion of the illegality of those actions on the basis of the institution of the consent of the victim, i.e. on the basis of the right to self-determination. Theoretically, the only possibility is the exclusion of culpability of the offender based on the justification of necessity. The principles of autonomy and beneficence are considered only to a very limited extend - only as factors for assessing the existence of the conditions for invoking the offender's defence of justification of necessity. The ECtHR in the cases Pretty, Haas, Koch and Gross have already recognized an individual's right to self-determination by what means and at what point will life end, as a part of the right to respect for private life. The court's decision is based on parity of the principles of the sanctity of life, autonomy and beneficence. The principle of autonomy (if necessary with the help of third parties) can prevail over the principle of the sanctity of life considering the principle of beneficence. The court has also decided that if the legal system allows (in one way or another) active termination of life, the legal framework must be foreseeable. The extent and the procedure for exercising rights must be clear and understandable for the addresses. Considering the above points of ECtHR, the Slovenian's system is, in my opinion, inadequate and should be changed by taking into account the solutions of the other two systems, especially the Dutch system.
Secondary keywords:	euthanasia;assisted suicide;right to decide by what means and at what point will life end;right of self-determination;principle of the sanctity of life;principle of autonomy (self-determination) and principle of beneficence.;
Type (COBISS):	Doctoral dissertation
Study programme:	0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE):	1970-01-01
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Pages:	395 str.
ID:	10844255