Suicidio assistito

The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) decided that no defense of
“necessity” exists within the homicide or assisted suicide Acts,
and that only parliament can decide to change the law in relation to
euthanasia and/or assisted suicide.

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.
The Court concluded that Swiss law, while providing the possibility of
obtaining a lethal dose of a drug on medical prescription, did not
provide sufficient guidelines ensuring clarity as to the extent of
this right. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 8 of the
Convention in that respect.

Sentenza 17 gennaio 2005: “Stati Uniti d’America: suicidio assistito per i malati terminali nello Stato dell’Oregon”. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. OREGON et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 04-623. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA or Act), which was enacted in 1970 with the main objectives […]

Nel caso “Pretty v. the United Kingdom”, il diniego di autorizzazione
all’eutanasia mediante suicidio assistito non integra una violazione
di nessuno dei seguenti articoli della CEDU – Convenzione europea dei
diritti dell’uomo: art. 2 (diritto alla vita), art. 3 (divieto di
trattamenti e pene inumani o degradanti), art. 8 (rispetto della vita
privata), art. 9 (libertà di coscienza), art. 14 (divieto di
discriminazione).