12 Hunger Strike in the Pendulum of Ethics and Law punishment shall be imposed due to an act committed with the consent given by the person concerned with respect to any of his rights that he is able fully to exercise”. For instance, no one has the capacity to take an action with respect to his/her right to life. An unlimited exercise of this right or ending someone’s life by choice is not approved in legal and ethical terms.38 Therefore, the consent given by the person concerned shall be null and void. Assisting a patient, who is suffering an unrecoverable disease, in ending his/her life so as to cease sufferings or in cases where he/ she wants to die of own free will shall even amount to the criminal act of deliberate killing.39 This instance naturally brings to mind the act of euthanasia and the associated arguments.40 38 Koca, Mahmut, İntihara Yönlendirme Suçu (TCK m. 84) (Offence of Encouraging Suicide (Article 84 of the Turkish Criminal Code), Ceza Hukuku Dergisi, Vol. 5, Issue: 12, 2010, p. 20. 39 Demirbaş, p. 342; M. Emre Tulay, “Türk Ceza Hukukunda İntihara Yönlendirme Suçu (Offence of Encouraging Suicide in the Turkish Criminal Law)”, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, Vol. 26, Issue: 2, December 2020, p. 827. 40 In cases where the death of a patient is caused with the direct and active involvement of the physician but with the patient’s consent, it amounts to active euthanasia. When it is caused as the physician remains inactive, that is to say due to physician’s negligence, passive euthanasia comes into play (Muharrem Özen & Meral Ekici Şahin, Ötanazi (Euthanasia), Ankara Barosu Dergisi, Issue: 4, 2010, p. 17). There is no clarity in the European Convention on Human Rights as to whether euthanasia may be regarded as a right (Sibel İnceoğlu, İnsan Hakları Bakımından Ötanazi (Euthanasia in terms of Human Rights), Yeditepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. III, Issue: 2, Y. 2006, p. 292). It should be noted that as regards active euthanasia, the ECHR adopts an approach that predominates the right to life as well as sacred nature and inviolability of life over the party autonomy. In its judgments in the cases of Pretty v. United Kingdom, Nicklinson and Lamb v. United Kingdom and Haas v. Switzerland, the ECHR adopted an approach in line with the above-mentioned evaluation. Besides, it is always possible for the countries to legalise the active euthanasia in their domestic law, and such a regulation will comply with the human rights standards. As a matter of fact, it should have been separately considered whether the relative or health-care officer who unfortunately puts an end to the life of a person demanding to be killed due to his sufferings is faulty given the appeal and pain of the latter (Özgenç, p. 348, footnote 563). Indeed, Article 140 of the Ministerial Bill concerning the Turkish Criminal Code no. 5237, titled “To Cease Sufferings”, lays down such a regulation: “A person who has caused death of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease upon the latter’s insistent demands when he is fully conscious and reasonably controls his motions and solely for the purpose of ceasing the patient’s sufferings
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1