The present article is part of a dense literature – result of a perennial debate – that has polarized societies for a long time and has evident reverberations in the present. It deals with “the right to death”, trying to offer some answers referring to its existence in fact and the way in which it is perceived by different states and diverse entities with juridical nature. In the first part of the paper, it is insisted upon the right to life, so that subsequently, to speak in detail about a “right to death” and the moral and juridical implications of using such phrases. There are analyzed different states of the world found on one part or the other of the barricade in what concerns the legality of euthanasia and assisted suicide – considered the two hypostasis of the right in question. It is offered, as well, an analysis of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, mentioning that, paradoxically, while it cannot be modified so that it allows the appearance of some new rights, it can tacitly accept the creation by some states that have adhered to it of some rights antagonistic with those presented in its text. The conclusion, is that not any liberalization movement of a social action – quantified through the request of a right – has as a direct result a progress of the respective society, especially when the action creates something diametrically opposed to some fundamental functioning norms, such as, by excellence, the granting of the protection of life of all individuals.
1. Borry P., Schotsmans P., Dierickx K. 2006: Empirical research in bioethical journals. A quantitative analysis. “J Med Ethics”, XXXII/4, pp. 240-245.
2. Curran J. W, J.D., S.M. Hyg 1970: Suicide: Civil Right or Punishable Crime?, “Public Health and the Law” LX/1, p. 167.
3. European Council 1953: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Strasbourg, Directorate of Information.
4. Eutanasia 2010: in Britannica Universal Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, p. 358), Bucharest, Litera Publishing
5. Haas versus Switzerland (European Court of Human Rights, 2011).
6. Inter-American Commission For Human Rights (IACHR): The American Declaration of Human Rights and Duties, Article 1, available at: http:///www.refword.org/docid/3ae6b3710.html (accessed in 1st October 2015).
7. Johnston and others versus Ireland (European Court of Human Rights, 1986).
8. Lester, D. 2006: Suicide and Islam, in “Archives of suicide research: official journal of the International Academy for Suicide research”, X/1, pp.77-97.
9. Locke, J. 2011: Second treaties of Civil Government, Oregon, Watchmake Publishing.
10. M’baye, K. 1991: Les droits de l’homme et des peoples, Paris, A. Pedone Publishing, p. 111.
11. Pretty versus Great Britain (European Court of Human Rights, 2002).
12. Sommerville Margaret (2014), Exploring Interactions between Pain, Suffering and the Law, in “Suffering and Bioethics”, Oxford University Press, p. 2018.
13. Streletz, Kessler and Krenz versus Germany (European Court of Human Rights, 2001).
14. Suicide 2010: in Britannica Universal Encyclopedia (Vol.14 pp. 189-190), Bucharest, Litera Publishing.
15. The Belgian Law regarding Euthanasia from 2002, Chap. 2, Section3, Parag. 1.
16. Udroiu, M. 2014: Dreptul penal. Partea Speciala, Noul Cod Penal, Bucharest, C.H. Beck Publishing, pp. 26-28.
17. United Nations General Assembly 1948: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 217 A (III), article 3, available at http:///www.refword.org/docid/3ae6b3712v.html (accessed on 28 September 2015).
18. Widmer versus Switzerland (European Court of Human Rights, 1993).