Essay on the Law of the Right to Life
Euthanasia and suicide
The Constitution does not formally recognize the right to voluntarily end up with one’s life as a fundamental right. The constituent has assured the positive aspect of the right to life but says nothing about the negative aspect, of the right to death itself. In this sense, the Constitutional Court has affirmed that "it is not possible to admit that the Constitution guarantees in its article 15 the right to death itself"
Sometimes, cases are raised in which death is not openly desired, but you don’t want it to be prevented from reaching it. They are assumptions of collision of the right to life with other fundamental rights or freedoms: such as freedom of beliefs or ideological freedom, this happens when Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to receive blood transfusions because their religion is forbidden. The problem of which of the two rights must prevail and for which of them the State must ensure.
The Constitutional Court in case of collision of the right to life with other fundamental rights has been blunt: when human life depends on third parties, the obligation to defend life over the decision of the affected party itself is imposed.
Thus, in the case of the hunger strike initiated by inmates of the GRAPO terrorist band, the Constitutional Court considered that the decision of the penitentiary administration to necessarily feed them at the time when their life began to run serious danger in the judgment of thedoctors, it was not contrary to article 15, because it was precisely aimed at safeguarding the vine.
When you want to end the life itself, the Spanish legislator has chosen not to typify suicide as a crime (logically the suicide attempt) but does punish helping someone end their life (induction and cooperation to suicide).
The opportunity to admit and give legal regulation to euthanasia (only in force in Holland and Belgium), consisting of the aid provided to a person to die, for strictly humanitarian reasons (patient in terminal or impossible stateto lead an autonomous life, etc.).
From a constitutional point of view, euthanasia can be defended whenever there is a consent of the person who manifests his desire to die when his life reaches one of these extreme situations ("vital testament"). For this, the dignity of the person (article 10 CE), ideological and religion freedom (article 16), the prohibition of supporting inhuman treatment (article 15 CE) and above all the right to die dignity, without unnecessary sufferings. In fact, there seems to be a generalized consensus in many societies, including the Spanish, in favor of passive euthanasia, the judicial authorizations being increasingIn a deep coma, of the technical means that assist you.
But today, the Criminal Code continues to punish suicide aid in Spain (art. 134 CP) and, therefore, it does not offer a possible way for euthanasia in any of its three modalities: direct active (purpose of causing the death of the patient with an overdose of morphine, for example), indirect active (intention to relieve thepain even knowing that this will mean the anticipation of death), and passive (withdraw the artificial means that prolong the patient’s life). Only the so -called “vital testament” is regulated, regulated by Law 41/2002 that allows a person to leave instructions on the medical treatments that he wishes or not receive in the case of suffering an irreversible disease that prevents him from expressing himself by himself.
After explaining the content of euthanasia and suicide arises the debate to be in favor or against these two methods to end your life.
From a constitutional point of view, euthanasia can be defended whenever there is a consent of the person who manifests his desire to die when his life reaches one of these extreme situations . For this, the dignity of the person (article 10 CE), ideological and religion freedom (article 16), the prohibition of supporting inhuman treatment (article 15 CE) and above all the right to die dignity, without unnecessary sufferings.
As I mentioned before the Constitutional Court in the event that the right to life is shocked with other fundamental rights, it has been quite hard saying textually: “When human life depends on third parties, the obligation to defend life is imposed onof the affected decision itself "
But in this case, those who argue in favor of euthanasia say that their life does not depend on third parties and that they are seen in that situation do not have to depend on third parties and are alleged to article 10 and 15 of the CE .
People who are in favor of euthanasia also argue that there seems to be a generalized consensus in many societies, including Spanish, in favor of euthanasia, being increasingly abundant judicial authorizations to avoid the artificial prolongation of life.
Now we are going to move to the other point of view, the point against euthanasia.First, it is not possible to admit that the Constitution guarantees in its article 15 the right to death itself.
Neither does the establishment of a public permissive standard for euthanasia could involve transferring a social message to the most serious and incapacitated patients, who can be seen coerced, even if silently and indirectly, to request a faster ending, understanding that they suppose a burdenuseless for their families and for society.
Another argument that very rigorous recent studies have been published that show that at the request of euthanasia by the patients, it decreases by improving the training of professionals in the treatment of pain and in palliative care. So this demonstrates the hypothesis that the approval of an euthanasia law would stop the involvement, both scientific and welfare, of some doctors and professionals especially in the field of palliative care.
The theory of the slippery slope also emerges: euthanasia once legalized in cases of voluntary application, the social climate leads doctors and family members to slide towards their application in cases of unconscious or incapable patients who have not expressed their authorization. This theory is nothing more than a hypothesis that in fact has been very criticized but that nevertheless in Holland. Therefore, according to this theory, the legalization of euthanasia would lead to cases of unacceptable euthanasia, something unacceptable and with serious social repercussions.
Abortion:
Regarding abortion, the law does not consider the fetus as a person until it was born, if it is true that it watches for the greatest benefit of this and for its health and safety, but the penalty for attacking the life of the unborn forThe right is punished with less serious since we have said for the law is considered as not born.
Unquestionably every person is the holder of the right to life. Personality, according to article 30 of the Civil Code, is acquired at the time of birth alive, once the whole detachment of the maternal breast is produced. The question discussed is if in addition to the person there are other possible holders of the right to life, we refer to nasciturus, that is, when conceived but not born.
The legitimacy or illegitimacy of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy is undoubted. Since the seventies abortion has been decriminalized in England, Germany, France, Italy and the United States. In this sense, the solutions that have occurred in comparative law are basically two:
In countries like the United States, the Supreme Court considers that pregnant woman has constitutional right to abort, as a consequence of her rights of freedom, equality and intimacy, which in this case prevail over the life of Nasciturus. The right to interrupt pregnancy can be limited by the legislator, but respecting as much as possible the freedom of women.
In Germany the opposite occurs to the American country, the Federal Constitutional Court considers that life is a "legal good" that must be protected even in the face of the freedom of pregnant women, so abortion is a crime. Abortion can only be exempted from responsibility in certain cases that justify it.
Our Constitution does not expressly mention Nasciturus. Some understood, however, that by using article 15 the expression "all have the right to life" the constituent wanted to include among the holders of this right to Nasciturus.
However, the Constitutional Court rejected this interpretation when it had to rule on the constitutionality of Organic Law 9/1985 of decriminalization of certain cases of abortion, in the aforementioned Judgment 53/85. According to constitutional jurisprudence for "all" "all persons" must be interpreted, and Nasciturus is not, therefore, holder of the right to life.
But that does not mean, the Constitutional Court continues, that the life of Nasciturus does not deserve any protection, since the "human life in formation" constitutes a legal good that must be protected by the State.
In our country, LO 3/1985 contemplated three assumptions in which the interruption of pregnancy was decriminalized (law of assumptions): in case of serious danger to the life of the pregnant woman or for her health, without any period (alleged therapeutic). In the event that pregnancy is a consequence of a crime of rape and provided that abortion is practiced within the first twelve (ethical). In case of probable existence of serious physical or psychic taras in the fetus and provided that it is practiced within the first twenty -two weeks (eugenic assumption).
This legislation was considered constitutional and has been in force twenty -five years. LO 2/2010, sexual and reproductive health and voluntary interruption of pregnancy has changed such regulation, opting for a mixed system (Law of deadlines + assumptions). It allows the woman to request the voluntary interruption of her pregnancy within the first fourteen weeks of gestation without claiming any causes (law of deadlines).
After this period, abortion is only possible in three cases: in case of serious danger to the life or health of the pregnant woman, provided that the twenty -two weeks of gestation (alleged therapeutic) is not overcome, in case of risk of serious anomalies inThe fetus, provided that it is practiced within the first twenty -second weeks (eugenic assumption). Beyond twenty -two weeks, abortion can only be practiced when fetal anomalies are detected with life.
The right of life as we have already said is both fundamental and universal, it is a right that nothing or anyone can snatch ourselves and from which all people should be able to enjoy without any impediment.
And even if it is true that for the law the unborn person is not considered as a person, deciding that a someone does not nazca, that is, denying his life, is something that far exceeds the unfair word. Today there are many ways to avoid having to get to this practice such as condoms, contraceptive pills or even if a person is very sure of not having children can operate and thus avoid reaching these types of situations. From this position, we want to make a reflection, why is a murder of an abortion so different?
Both socially and legally there are differences in these facts when they really are not so disparate. First, in the legal aspect, following article 145 of the Criminal Code that says “the woman who produces her abortion or consented that another person causes it, outside the cases allowed by law, will be punished with the penalty of a fine of six sixtwenty -four months´´ (in case it is after 12 weeks gestation).
In other wordsand 15 years following article 138.
This is that he leads to think, because if a woman aborts at 8 months or even days before the Nazca fetus is punishable with something so insignificant compared to someone murdered another person, when they really are people.
Also, there is a big difference, since there are young people who argue that for having a mishap one night they will have to carry another life for the rest of theirs of theirs? Thus arguing abortion, but from our defense we think that there are many means to avoid having those mishaps and that people would really have to be aware that the main consequence of acting without adequate measures is to create a new life.
And socially there are people who think “well, he is young, I understand that he has aborted because it was a mishap and will not want to ruin his youth ‘while they see a murderer that same person would be afraid.
Regarding one of the very common arguments among young people who abort is that they will have to sacrifice their youth, that they will not be able to continue their studies or that they will not be able to party as before.
But there are many cases of young people who have their children when they are young and you can confirm that with a good organization you can do everything.
There are also arguments to defend the position in favor of abortion, and that is that women have full decision about whether to abort or not and this is because they have the right to choose on their own body since it is theirs for that is theirs.
It is not sought to make a comparison to the letter or that it is believed that we are making a simile, but if we think about a situation in which we choose our own body it is for example on weekends, that is, if a person choosesGo out and have fun on the weekend will know the consequences that you will have next week. Then if that person decides that he does not want his body to suffer from that situation, he will simply cut it from the root.
With this example you want to make that if a woman does not want to have a child who will in the end be inside her body 9 months. Why wouldn’t he be able to stop with the pregnancy process? If all repercussions are going to fall on itself.
We want to emphasize that abortion we think is necessary, because there are exceptional cases in which the practice of the process has to be carried out, such as violations. We consider that the people who have been raped and by some casual have become pregnant are in their right to abort without any opposition taking the time it takes because from here we launch an assumption.
We know that in Spain it is legal to abort the first 14 weeks of gestation following Organic Law 2/2010, of March 3, on sexual and reproductive health and the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, and we also consider that this law is necessary because no one mustto be a mother if you really do not want it and we consider that therefore you need a time to decide.
There is an issue, and everyone agrees that if a woman has been raped, she can abort freely and without any complaint, but, and if the woman for any justified cause has not been able to abort until the weeks 24.What would happen? Because when everyone is really violated, it supports that it abort, but at 24 weeks it is argued that it is too late. With this example we want to show that this decision really is something that depends entirely on the mother since the consequences will directly affect it.
To conclude with both positions already commented, as data in Spain the voluntary interruptions of pregnancy increased 1.91% in 2019 compared to the previous year to 95.917 interventions. With which we can say that abortions are increasing thus affirming the debate.
Leave feedback