Sanduta Natalia,MSU,Law,

Gr.311, English Department

Euthanasia : the necessity to legalise or maintain the offence in the Criminal Code of
Republic of Moldova
The contradiction regarding the legalization of euthanasia relies in the human life being the
most sacred value protected by the state and settled as a fundamental principle,including
European Convention on Human Rights that provides : Everyones right to life shall be
protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a
sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by
law.1Humanity, has redeemed the recognition and strenghtening of the right to life throughout
it's hystorical existence, reaching an utmost level of acknowledgement at the current
moment.Therefore, the decriminalization of euthanasia strikes as being contrary to the
perception of human life as an absolute value and against the judgement that a person shall be
enabled by the law to take the life of another person, even with the consent of the last.When
analyzing the concequences of committing such an offence it becomes obvious that euthanasia
is not about the person who is killed, but about the person who does the killing. In other words,
euthanasia is not about the right to die, it's about the right to kill.
Theoretical approach. I, personally, hold the position against the legalisation of euthanasia.In
arguing the point that euthanasia must be maintained as an offence,including under the
legislation of Republic of Moldova,the following shall be taken into account :
1.Euthanasia attacks a foundational right, the right to life and diminishes it's value.The degree
of progress of a civilization is measured by its ability to protect life, while legally enabling a
person to committ the offence of euthanasia or assistted suicide leaves an open door for abuse
of such provisions and decreases the level of protection of each human life.This argument
implies that guidelines designed for euthanasia would at some point be violated, and mistakes
would be made. The result of euthanasia legalisation could,also, have a psychological side:
anti-euthanasia activists argue that patients may choose death because they feel guilty for
staying alive and causing financial burdens on their families. Families may give up too soon
and encourage the death to end the suffering of their family memebers. Doctors may not try as
hard to extend the life of a patient who is considered terminal. Society might put less value on
giving medical assistance for the disabled, the poor, and minorities because death would be
cheaper and more convenient.

European Convention on Human Rights art.2 par. 1.

2.Voluntary euthanasia undermines medical research.One of the major driving forces behind
the exceptional medical advances has been the desire to develop treatments for previously fatal
illnesses, and the eagerness to alleviate until then the unmanageable symptoms. Medical
research is essential if medicine is to advance further. When the focus changes this whole
process is threatened. If euthanasia is legalised we can expect advances in ktenology (the
science of killing) at the expense of treatment and symptom control. This will in turn encourage
further calls for euthanasia. 2
3.Voluntary euthanasia changes the public conscience.The law is a very powerful educator of
the public conscience. When a practice becomes legal, accepted and widely practised in
society, people cease to have strong feelings about it.
4.Voluntary euthanasia leads to euthanasia tourism. Once voluntary, euthanasia is legalised in
a single country or state, people from neighbouring constituencies will take advantage of it .
This way, no territory can act in isolation. The decisions that are made have implications for
other nation. Any state considering a change in its laws in this regard has a responsibility not
just to its own citizens but to the whole international community. 3
Judicial practice.In the case of Pretty vs. United Kingdom the applicant was dying of a neuron
disease. She was paralyzed but could make decisions. She wanted to die, to be spared of
suffering and indignity but could not do it by herself. She thus wanted her husband to help her
commit suicide. However, it was a crime to assist another to commit suicide under the British
laws and her request to guarantee her husband freedom from prosecution if he helped her was
refused.The applicant claimed that the U.K. violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment), Article 2 (right to life), Article 8 (right to respect for
private life), Article 9 (freedom of conscience) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination).
The Court correctly determined that the facts of the case fell within the range of Article 8,
which was examined in conjunction with Article 14, focussing on the claim that she was
prevented from exercising a right enjoyed by others who could end their lives without
assistance because they were not prevented from doing so by any disability. The Court
emphasised that under the Convention, discrimination may entail equal treatment of those in
different conditions, but also reiterated that member states have a margin of appreciation in
their application of the convention. In this case, the Court found the Government had

http://www.cmf.org.uk/advocacy/end-of-life/euthanasia/
Inquiry into the Rights of the Terminally Ill (Euthanasia Laws Repeal) Bill 2008

reasonable justification for not creating different legal regimes concerning assisted suicide for
those physically able and those physically unable due to the risk of abuse and undermining of
the protection of life safeguarded by the 1961 Suicide Act. For these reasons, the Court
unanimously found no violation of Article 14 of the Convention, and no violation of Articles
2, 3, 8 and 9. "Article 2 (which guarantees the right to life) can not be interpreted without a
distortion of language, as granting a right directly opposite, namely the right to die; nor can it
create a right to self-determination in the sense of conferring an individual to choose death at
the expense of life. ".
Conclusions. Requests for voluntary euthanasia are extremely rare in situations where the
physical, emotional and spiritual needs of terminally ill patients are properly met. As the
symptoms which determine the request for euthanasia can be almost always managed with
therapies currently available, the highest priority of the state,in this matter, must be to ensure
that top quality terminal care.The answer is not to change the legislation , but to improve
heathcare.While recognising the importance of individual patient autonomy, legalised
euthanasia poses serious risks to society as a whole. Patients can be coerced and exploited, the
search for better therapies is compromised and involuntary euthanasia inevitably follows.
Legislation allowing voluntary euthanasia should be firmly resisted on the grounds that it
sidesteps true compassionate care (because effective alternatives exist) and ultimately
undermines rather than protects patient autonomy.
The dangers of such changes in legislation would far outweight any possible benefits.In regards
to the prevalent failure of the heathcare system to treat pain and diagnose and treat depression
, legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia would be profoundly dangerous for many
individuals who are ill and vulnerable.The risks would be most severe for those who are elderly,
poor, socially disadvantaged, or without acces to good medical care. 4
Bibliography
1.Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalisation,author: J. Keown
2.European Convention on Human Rights .
3.Inquiry into the Rights of the Terminally Ill (Euthanasia Laws Repeal) Bill 2008.
4.http://www.cmf.org.uk/advocacy/end-of-life/euthanasia/

Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalisation ,author : John Keown.