The European Court of Human Rights has upheld the right to life by striking down a challenge seeking to permit ‘assisted suicide’ in Hungary. In the new ruling handed down on June 13th, Europe’s top human rights court has held that Hungary is entitled to “maintain a complete ban on assisted suicide” and thus should not be forced to allow the practice.
The case at hand concerns Hungarian national Dániel Karsai, currently in the advanced stages of ALS, a progressive neurodegenerative condition, who sought to undermine Hungary’s legal protections for life by challenging its ban on assisted suicide. Karsai looked to assert his ‘right’ to obtain assisted suicide under the right to privacy established under the European Convention on Human Rights. Now, the Court has held that Hungary is under no obligation to allow Mr. Karsai to end his life by way of assisted suicide.
As stated in the judgment, there exists “no basis for concluding that the member states are thereby advised, let alone required, to provide access” to assisted suicide.
We should applaud the Court’s decision to uphold Hungary’s essential human rights protections. Although we deeply empathize with Mr. Karsai’s condition, Hungary has both the right and the duty to safeguard human life. The Court is absolutely correct to affirm that Hungary has the right to safeguard the human life of its citizens. A hallmark of an advanced society is the investment of all available resources in providing the best standards of care and support for the suffering, not the promotion of institutionalized death.
The position of the Hungarian government before the Court was that there is no positive obligation on the state to support any form of assisted dying. ADF International, along with UK-based NGO Care Not Killing, intervened in Karsai v. Hungary, arguing that Hungary’s legal prohibition on assisted suicide must be upheld in line with the obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2) to protect the right to life.
In its submission to the Court, ADF International highlighted the inevitable abuses that ensue when legal protections for the right to life are eradicated. Removing protections for life under the law creates a dangerous scenario where pressure is placed on vulnerable people to end their lives in fear of being a burden upon relatives, caregivers, or a state that is short of resources. In essence, the acknowledgment of the false ‘right to die’ quickly morphs into a perceived duty to die.
Specifically at issue in this case was the law in Hungary, which would have imposed potential criminal liability on anyone who would have supported Mr. Karsai in obtaining assisted suicide, even if out of the country. The Hungarian law holds that “a person who induces or provides assistance for another person to commit suicide is guilty of a felony.” Hungary thus protects the lives of its citizens by criminalizing the act of supporting someone to obtain assisted suicide, whether the act is committed in Hungary or abroad. Mr. Karsai maintained that this effectively prevented him from ending his life via assisted suicide.
While the Court came to the correct conclusion with regard to Hungary in this case, where it falls short is in failing to recognize the duty of states to reject assisted suicide. In its 2022 ruling in Mortier v. Belgium. the Court found that Belgium violated the right to life in the circumstances surrounding the euthanasia of Mrs. Godelieva De Troyer, given the lack of sufficient ‘safeguards.’ In Karsai, it ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights neither obliges nor prevents states from legalizing assisted death, as long as “appropriate and sufficient safeguards” are in place.
The Court holds in Karsai that should a state legalize euthanasia, it must develop a “robust regulatory framework” to keep it “safely applied in practice.” However, it is apparent the world over that the legalization of state-sponsored death leads to an onslaught of abuses. The Court is cognizant of these abuses, thereby leading it to affirm a state’s “margin of appreciation” to balance its ability to establish and enforce these safeguards against the desire of an individual to procure legal assisted death. It ultimately finds Hungary’s criminal ban “not disproportionate” on account of the risks of abuse. What the Court fails to recognize in its weighing exercise is the clear fact that there is no ‘right to die.’
As the Court pointed out, of the 46 member states of the Council of Europe, only six have legalized assisted suicide. But wherever it is allowed, legal ‘safeguards’ have proven insufficient to prevent abuses. These manifest as most harmful to the truly vulnerable, including the elderly, the disabled, and those suffering from mental illness or depression. Suicide, regardless of whether it is carried out by one’s own hands or under the auspices of the system, is always a tragedy. The intentional taking of human life can never be safe. Countries that have legalized euthanasia now allow the intentional killing of children, those who are physically healthy, and those who have not given their consent.
Ultimately, a so-called ‘right to die’ does not exist and is fundamentally incompatible with the clear right to life enshrined in both European and international human rights law. However, the Court’s ruling in favor of Hungary’s sovereign jurisdiction on this issue is an important win. Should the Court have ruled against Hungary, forcing the state to allow assisted suicide, it would have ushered in a terrifying new era of overreach. Every state has both the right and the obligation to maintain laws that protect human life, and no body should ever wield its authority to contravene this basic role of the state in safeguarding its citizens.