Gawlik v. Liechtenstein concerned a doctor who raised suspicions that euthanasia had been taking place in his hospital. In doing so, he went outside the hospital complaints structure and lodged a criminal complaint. The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, finding that the interference with the applicant\u2019s rights had been proportionate. While noting that he had not acted with improper motives, the Court nevertheless found that the applicant had been negligent in not verifying information. In the present case, it considered that the applicant\u2019s dismissal had been justified, especially given the effect on the hospital\u2019s and another staff member\u2019s reputations.<\/p>\n
Lings v. Denmark The applicant was a doctor and the founder of Physicians in Favour of Euthanasia (L\u00e6ger for Aktiv D\u00f8dshj\u00e6lp), an organisation campaigning for assisted suicide. The case concerned his conviction on two counts of assisted suicide, and one count of attempted assisted suicide. The Court held that there had been no violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, finding that, overall, the domestic courts\u2019 reasons for taking the decision they did \u2013 protection of health and morals and the rights of others \u2013 had been legitimate, and they had acted within the wide discretion (\u201cmargin of appreciation\u201d) afforded to the authorities in this particular case. The Court also emphasised that no right to assisted suicide existed under the Convention.<\/p>\n\n
\n <\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
No Right to Euthanasia Pretty v UK confirmed that is no right to end one\u2019s life prematurely. The applicant wished to permit to assist her husband in ending her life without the risk of prosecution for aiding and abetting suicide. The applicant was concerned her husband might be subject to prosecution for assisting her suicide. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[347],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22910"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22910"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22910\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23547,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22910\/revisions\/23547"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/legalblog.ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}