Politicizing Assisted Suicide Does not Serve the Protection of Society

As the list of countries allowing assisted suicide is slowly expanding, Hungary has not been exempt from these discussions either. Although the practice is currently illegal in the country, a legal expert, Dániel Karsai, who himself is suffering from a serious disease, has started an initiative with the aim of legalizing assisted suicide. Three weeks ago the European Court of Human Rights held an oral hearing in Mr. Karsai’s case.

In general, the debate revolves along the individual rights of people who wish to end their lives voluntarily, and the interests, as well as protection of society as a whole. Relaxing legal precedents in such crucial issues as the protection of life could, and some argue that is already has, bring about malpractice, exploitation and abuses. One could argue that the way some media outlets and political actors have approached the issue already amounts to a distortion of the real issues at stake, as the case of Mr. Karsai is being used to present the government’s human rights record as a whole in a light that serves the interests of particular groups.

The question of euthanasia is, among others, a political issue, but when used, as it often is in Hungary, to attack political opponents without appropriate regard to the well-being of people suffering from serious conditions or society as a whole, the debate does not serve the interests of citizens.

Mr. Karsai, 46, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), coined a slogan – “life is a right, not an obligation”. Albeit a catchy formulation of his beliefs, some could just as easily argue that it is none of the above, and it therefore does not bring the debate any closer to a moral resolution.

Dániel Karsai, after meeting with the governing party, Fidesz MP Lajos Kósa wrote that “in the freedom and responsibility chapter of the Constitution, life is only a right. Not an obligation. I will not go into a detailed constitutional argument, but it is more than remarkable that the list of fundamental rights begins with human dignity”. He continues by explaining his slogan as representing two things: the right to make end-of-life decisions and a commitment to respectful social dialogue.

Photo: Facebook Dániel Karsai

The liberals of the Momentum party have actively used the case for an anti-government narrative, pledging to go for a referendum on the issue, while government MP Lajos Kósa had also hinted at supporting such a move, if all the necessary conditions are met. At the November hearing in Strasbourg the Hungarian government was represented by Zoltán Tallódi, Head of the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Justice. Tallódi, representing the government’s position, said that the case was emotionally moving, but that it had to be approached from a professional point of view. According to Tallódi,

an obligation for Hungary to legalize euthanasia would raise serious questions about the interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Hungary believes that legalizing euthanasia is contrary to the second article of the Convention, which states that the law protects everyone’s right to life.

The Christian faith-based legal advocacy group ADF International also intervened in the case of 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, the legal advocacy organization highlights the inevitable abuses that ensue when legal protections for the right to life are eradicated. The brief explains: “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.”

They continued by saying that 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 World Medical Association consistently and categorically has rejected the practice of euthanasia and assisted suicide as unethical. In Resolution 1859 (2012), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated unequivocally that: “Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited”, pointed out ADF International in their statement.