20 Hunger Strike in the Pendulum of Ethics and Law free will, regarding any legal value he possesses.66 This right also brings along the freedom of self-determination and is predicated on the inviolability of human dignity and the principle of a person’s self-respect.67 From the standpoint of this understanding, the principle of respect for human dignity overrides even the State’s obligation to protect life.68 Accordingly, a patient’s desire, of his own will, to be let die in a natural way or his refusal of a medical treatment in spite of the presence of a life-threatening situation is called as “veto power in medicine”, which is predicated on the principle of the person’s self-respect.69 Out of these two approaches, we agree with the latter, which is autonomy-oriented. We are of the opinion that the illusion on the part of those arguing that intervention is necessary in case of a hunger strike, following a certain stage, is their consideration that this act is intended for death. However, it is always possible to reverse the situation, and the striker relies on this opportunity. The hunger striker acts on the basis of his right to self-determination and puts his body and health at risk, as a way of expressing his/her thought, without causing damage to others. In that case, to permit a hunger strike until, so to say, the striker gets hungry does not comply with the nature of the freedom of expression or the hunger strike. As a matter of fact, Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine lays down, in principle, that the previously expressed wishes relating to a medical intervention by a patient shall be taken into account. This principle is to be applied also in terms of the hunger striker, who is now a patient. The legal practitioner must disregard any contradictory norm in the domestic law and apply the provisions of this Convention.70 In this sense, the Regulation on Patients’ Rights, amended in 2014, adopted an approach that is parallel to that of the Convention by stipulating that “The previously expressed wishes relating to a medical intervention by a patient who is not, at the time of the intervention, in a state to express his wishes shall be taken into account” (Article 24 § 5). 66 Aygörmez, p. 138. 67 Üstün & Uğurlubay, p. 29. 68 Akıncı, p. 754. 69 Aygörmez, p. 147. 70 Erman, “Türk Hukukunda… (in Turkish Law…)”, p. 35.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTQ3OTE1