A man who sued Hungary in an attempt to force the government to legalize assisted suicide has lost his case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR ruled on June 13, that Hungarian authorities’ refusal of the man’s request to end his life by physician-assisted death doesn’t violate the European Convention on Human Rights.
Last November, Dániel Karsai brought his case to the ECHR, claiming he should be allowed to undergo assisted suicide due to a diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Karsai claimed that the country’s ban on assisted suicide is a violation of his rights under Article 8 — a right to respect for private and family life — and Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination — of the European Convention on Human Rights. He argued that he was discriminated against because terminally ill patients have the right under the law to cease their medical treatments, but he did not have the right to be prescribed drugs to end his own life.
ADF International and Care Not Killing represented Hungary, saying that Hungary’s current laws should be upheld. “Removing such provisions from law creates a dangerous scenario where pressure is placed on vulnerable people to end their lives in fear (whether or not justified) of being a burden upon relatives, carers, or a state that is short of resources,” ADF International argued.
On November 28, an oral hearing was held, where Jean-Paul Van De Walle, Legal Counsel for ADF International, argued that illness is not a reason to abandon protections in place for all human life.
READ: Normalizing assisted suicide will lead to a ‘duty to die’
“While Mr. Karsai’s condition demands our greatest compassion, we cannot abandon our essential human rights protections. Hungary is bound under European and international human rights law to safeguard human life,” he said, adding, “The right to life is inviolable, underlying all other human rights. Conversely, there is no so-called ‘right to die.’ Worldwide, only a tiny minority of countries allow assisted suicide. Wherever the practice is allowed, legal ‘safeguards’ are insufficient to prevent abuses, proving most harmful to vulnerable members of society, including the elderly, the disabled, and those suffering from mental illness or depression. And assisted suicide inevitably results in human rights-violating coercion on medical professionals and others to end human life. Suicide is something society rightly considers a tragedy to be prevented, and the same stance must apply with regard to assisted suicide. Killing someone can never be the solution.”
The ECHR announced its decision in the case, ruling against Karsai. In the judgment, the court ruled that Hungary’s obligation to protect human life under international law does not conflict with its ban on assisted suicide. As reported by Jurist News:
In its ruling, the European court acknowledged that Hungarian authorities have full discretion to assess whether physician-assisted death should be allowed or not and they did not “overstep” their discretion when they rejected a citizen’s demand to have access to medical suicide abroad. The court highlighted the importance of taking into account the “wider social implications and the risks of abuse and error” linked to medical suicide before deciding to provide access to it. By rejecting Karsai’s demand, the court found that Hungarian authorities managed to establish “a fair balance” between Karsai’s desire to end his life through physician-assisted death and “the legitimate aims” behind the Hungarian legislation prohibiting medical suicide.
The court also noted that Kasai refused to undertake palliative care and did not prove that such care was unavailable to him. Karsai’s “personal preference to forego otherwise appropriate and available procedures could not in itself require the authorities to provide alternative solutions, let alone to legalise physician-assisted death,” said the court.
“We applaud today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights, which upholds Hungary’s essential human rights protections,” Van De Walle said. “Although we deeply empathize with Mr. Karsai’s condition and support his right to receive the best care and relief possible, it is clear from other jurisdictions that a right to die quickly becomes a duty to die. Instead of abandoning our most vulnerable citizens, society should do all it can to provide the best standards of care.”
