SOS! Brexiters petition so that the UK leaves the European Convention on Human Rights, the only convention that includes the right to suicide

[hush hush]

The petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/618456

The right to suicide has been established through a case law in the European Court of Human Rights and is part of the Convention: "The Court considers that an individual's right to decide by what means and at what point his or her life will end, provided he or she is capable of freely reaching a decision on this question and acting in consequence, is one of the aspects of the right to respect for private life within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention". (Haas vs Switzerland, paragraph 51)

It formed the basis of discussing asststed dying in the UK https://www.parliament.uk/business/...2015/social-change/debating-assisted-suicide/

Therefore, if the UK withdraws from membership, then effectively, people leaving in the UK will not have any legal tools to defend rational suicide. Also, people will lose the only legal tool to defend themselves against involuntary hospitalization if a rational suicide fails, so this guide will no longer be valid in the UK https://sanctioned-suicide.net/thre...lf-against-involuntary-hospitalization.90919/

You cannot trust your entitled politicians to secure this right, especially if it's not protected under a convention.

 

[HerculePoirot]

Hopeless fools. Since the very beginning.

 

[jodes2]

Hmmm. I think we kind of don't want to withdraw from that for a lot of reasons, I can't sign that. Surely euthanasia laws could still be enacted even if we don't withdraw from the human rights thing

 

[Rational man]

How does the the Assisted Dying bill play into this. It is currently being discussed in parliament. Hopes are that it will be passed into law!.

 

[hush hush]

How does the the Assisted Dying bill play into this. It is currently being discussed in parliament. Hopes are that it will be passed into law!.

The right to private life of the European Convention on Human Rights opened the discussion. Don't forget the historic step taken towards this direction with Pretty Vs UK 2002 case in the European Court of Human Rights.

Pretty vs. United Kingdom

Application was made to the ECtHR for allowing assisted suicide (euthanasia) by a terminally ill person who wanted to end their life to avoid indignity. Articles 2, 3, 8, 9, and 14 of the ECHR were contended by the Applicant as support for having the right to end her life. The Court rejected her...

privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org

 

[harshbarger]

Hmmm. I think we kind of don't want to withdraw from that for a lot of reasons, I can't sign that. Surely euthanasia laws could still be enacted even if we don't withdraw from the human rights thing

Yes.

I'm not an expert or a lawyer, but the European Court found against Haas in the case cited by the OP. It did not find that his inability to lawfully obtain sodium pentobarbital without a prescription violated his Article 8 rights. Haas had a mental health disorder of some kind and, as the Court noted, was not terminally ill. Article 8 rights are qualified rights — even if some decision or law of government violates them, it doesn't follow that that decision or law must be struck down by a court.

That judgement was made in 2011 in any case and the Legislation.gov page linked by OP is itself from 2015.

 

[hush hush]

Yes.

I'm not an expert or a lawyer, but the European Court found against Haas in the case cited by the OP. It did not find that his inability to lawfully obtain sodium pentobarbital without a prescription violated his Article 8 rights. Haas had a mental health disorder of some kind and, as the Court noted, was not terminally ill. Article 8 rights are qualified rights — even if some decision or law of government violates them, it doesn't follow that that decision or law must be struck down by a court.

That judgement was made in 2011 in any case and the Legislation.gov page linked by OP is itself from 2015.

@jodes2
It formed the basis for a new case Gross Vs Switzerland (2013, unfortunately, the decision was withdrawn, as the applicant committed suicide 1.5 before the decision).
In that case "The Court considered that Ms Gross' wish to be provided with a lethal dose of medication allowing her to end her life fell within the scope of her right to respect for her private life under Article 8. In the case Haas v. Switzerland it had already acknowledged that an individual's right to decide the way in which and at which point his or her life should end, provided that he or she was in a position to freely form his or her own judgment and to act accordingly, was one of the aspects of the right to respect for private life".

Being granted access to sodium pentobarbital is one aspect of your personal life, according to the Court. The problem is that States cannot agree on this right, so the Court gives them a broad margin of appreciation/ discretion. It said that "it should be noted that the vast majority of member States seem to attach more weight to the protection of the individual's life than to his or her right to terminate it" (Haas Vs Switzerland, paragraph 55).

The Court believes it your right to terminate your life in a dignified and safe manner, but is reluctant to intervene, due to lack of consensus among the parties of the convention. However, sooner than later the states will be under more pressure to regulate access to safe suicides ( in a way that it protects the interests of all parties of society under the conflicting right to life, including irresponsible suicide attempters and disabled people who want to live). It is matter of time before more case-laws are filled to expand this right. This international convention is the only convention that has recognised such an individual right.