Citation

Soto-Miranda DF. Law and Humanities 2015; 9(2): 139-171.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015)

DOI

10.1080/17521483.2015.1093303

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This is an allegorical analysis of the currently topical developments in the UK judiciary's approach to human rights law, in the context of inter alia private autonomy versus the public interest as per Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The article is written as a pastiche of a UK Supreme Court judgment in a hypothetical case on euthanasia, which purports to illustrate the UK judiciary's seemingly erred and repeated omission of the fact that legalized euthanasia is prevented by the ECHR. Irrespective of the reader's philosophical perspective, a more transparent alternative is offered, safeguarding the fundamentally important principle of justice through certainty. The approach and analysis of the emerging competing jurisprudential perspectives is both practical and insightful in the resulting solutions offered. © 2015 Taylor & Francis.

Language: en

Keywords

Euthanasia; Assisted suicide; Privacy; ECHR; Article 3; Article 8; Freedom from torture; Incompatible; Nembutal; Section 2(1) suicide act 1961; Section 4 HRA 1998