Notes

The right to life depends on the person's personality, inviolable, basic constitutional one of their rights.Rights granted by law
First of all, the right to live and develop one's personality must be recognized and secured.The right to life is a fundamental right recognized by international and national regulations, protected by the constitution.In Turkish law, the right to life is a right that is protected even against oneself. It is stated that a person cannot save on the right to life. When talking about self-protection, one of the concepts that comes to mind is euthanasia.

definition of euthanasia

Euthanasia (euthanasia); It is a word derived from the combination of the Turkish words "eu" meaning good, pleasant, easy and "thanatos" meaning death.The word euthanasia (Euthanasia); It is interpreted as “easy death”, “death in peace, comfort and ease”, “natural death without suffering”.(1) * If we look at the dictionary definition of euthanasia, it is "the painless killing of a person with an incurable and painful disease".
Today, debates about the functioning and definition of euthanasia continue. However, the generally valid definition can be summarized as follows: Euthanasia; It can be defined as the end of the life of a person who is thought to be incurable and whose unbearable pain will continue until his death, whose condition is known to him and his relatives, who has the power to distinguish, and who carries out the treatment with his own consciousness and free will, through the doctor who carries out the treatment.

TYPES OF euthanasia

The concept of euthanasia is an examination of both medical science and legal science subject. The concept of euthanasia has been studied in terms of various disciplines, and this concept also has philosophical, ethical and sociological dimensions. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to the difference between the legal dimension and the concept of euthanasia with other concepts. However, before moving on to this distinction, it is necessary to focus on the types of this concept and to make legal examinations accordingly.

In terms of whether it depends on the will or not

Voluntary Euthanasia: it is the termination of the life of a patient who has the power of discrimination and who is fully competent in terms of action capacity, at the request of a patient. The person's mental consciousness should be completely sound, and he should request euthanasia with his free will, without any pressure or influence.
Involuntary Euthanasia: It is the type of euthanasia performed based on the consent of the patient's legal representative or relatives, in cases where the patient's consent cannot be obtained. This type of euthanasia is applied in cases where the patient's opinion about euthanasia cannot be expressed by himself, when he is unconscious, and in cases such as coma and vegetative life.

In terms of Active-Passive Euthanasia

Active Euthanasia: It is the death of the person by the direct use of medical methods. In other words, it is the doctor's putting an end to the patient's life by administering a lethal dose of medicine that will cause sudden and painless death following deep sedation. In active euthanasia, the patient dies as a result of the active action of the physician. The physician personally performs the application that will end the patient's life, that is, he assumes an active role. The nature of the movement is also important in active euthanasia. This movement should not be shooting or stabbing, but a movement that can be performed during medical practice.

Passive Euthanasia: It is euthanasia that is not directly applied and is performed by inaction, and it is the withdrawal or absence of life support necessary for the patient's survival. Discontinuation of the treatment applied to a person whose vital functions are maintained by medical methods, withdrawal of the gastrostomy tube, not starting or stopping the treatment that will prolong the patient's life relatively, etc. situations such as passive euthanasia can be given as an example.

LEGAL DIMENSION OF euthanasia

The first law in the world to recognize active euthanasia (Deadly Patient Rights Act) was passed in 1995 in the Northern Territory of Australia. However, upon objections, the Australian Senate abolished this law by 34 votes to 38 in 1997, on the grounds that the zonal state form in Australia did not authorize the Northern Territory to enact such a law.
When we examine the countries other than the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg that legally accept active euthanasia today; Regarding the legal dimension of euthanasia, countries can be examined in two groups:

1. Countries where euthanasia is clearly defined in the law: In these countries, the act of euthanasia is defined as manslaughter upon request and is punished less severely than other acts of murder. Examples of this are Switzerland and Germany.
2. Countries where euthanasia is not clearly defined in the law: The criminal laws of these countries do not specify the act of euthanasia. The action taken is evaluated under the title of "murder" according to the way the action took place. Many countries such as England, France and Canada can be given as an example to this situation.

Euthanasia IN TURKISH CRIMINAL LAW

In order to examine the euthanasia issue from a legal point of view, the existence of at least six conditions is required. First of all, a patient must be present. The second condition that must be met is that there is an “incurable” disease. The third requirement is that the disease is a disease that causes unbearable suffering; The unbearable pain in question may be of material or moral nature. The fourth condition is that the act of killing should be committed in order to get rid of the suffering of the patient as soon as possible. The fifth condition is the patient's consent for euthanasia. Although controversial in doctrine, the final requirement is that the practitioner of euthanasia must be a physician.
Although the view that the person who will apply euthanasia should be a doctor is mostly defended in the doctrine, questions arise about whether the practitioner should be a single physician or a specialist committee. It is stated that even if the legal applicability of euthanasia is accepted, it would be appropriate to seek the opinion of the expert committee when it comes to the application of euthanasia, which is a direct intervention in human life, if consultation of different specialists is required even when a patient is undergoing surgery.
It is seen that euthanasia is regulated in a separate article as a type of murder crime in many drafts that amend the TPC numbered 765 and is punished with a lighter penalty. For example, according to the regulation in Article 137 of the 1997 Draft, titled “motivation of relieving pain”; “Any person who is proven to have committed the act of killing, upon the insistent demands of a person who has been afflicted with an incurable and severely painful disease while having full consciousness and freedom of movement, and only for the purpose of putting an end to the suffering of the patient, is sentenced to imprisonment from one year to three years." .This regulation is included in article 140 of the 2003 draft in the same way. At the stage of enactment of the bill, this article was removed from the text of the law and no separate regulation was made. Since there is no separate regulation in our law regarding euthanasia, in case of active euthanasia, the crime of willful killing regulated in Article 81 of the TPC, and in the case of the application of passive euthanasia, the crime of willful killing by negligent behavior regulated in Article 83 of the TPC will occur. In Turkish Criminal Law, active euthanasia is not seen as legitimate in any way and there is no doubt that this practice will give rise to the crime of willful killing. On the other hand, there are opinions that argue that passive euthanasia is legally accepted within the framework of “the patient's right to refuse treatment”66. Therefore, the debate in the doctrine focuses on whether passive euthanasia can be applied or not.
According to Article 5 of the “Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Human Dignity with respect to the Application of Biology and Medicine” to which the Republic of Turkey is a party; “Any intervention in the field of health can be made after the person concerned has given free and informed consent to the intervention.” In this context, if the person who has an incurable disease does not consent, that person cannot be treated. In the third paragraph of the mentioned article of the contract, there is a regulation that "the person concerned can always withdraw his consent". Accordingly, it is possible for the person to abandon the treatment that has been started at any time, provided that his/her valid consent is obtained, and to discontinue the treatment. According to another opinion on this subject; “If there is an emergency situation that threatens life or one of the vital organs and the treatment has begun, it should not be possible to withdraw the consent”. As a matter of fact, in Article 24 of the Patient Rights Regulation, "withdrawal of consent after the intervention has started" is conditional on the condition that there is no medical inconvenience. Another positive regulation that should be mentioned is the Medical Deontology Regulation. In the 2nd article of the regulation, it is regulated that the duty of the physician is to show care and respect for human health, life and personality. In paragraph 3 of article 13, it is stated that the physician cannot do anything that will reduce the mental and physical strength of the patient by obeying the patient's wishes or for any other reason, without the purpose of diagnosis, treatment or protection. Another positive regulation on the subject is the 13th article of the Patient Rights Regulation. According to this article, euthanasia is prohibited and it is also regulated that the right to life cannot be waived for medical reasons or by any means, and that no one's life can be ended even if he or someone else requests it.

CONCLUSION

The ECHR decides in the cases that come before it according to the characteristics of the concrete case and agrees that the right to life does not include the right to die. I also believe that euthanasia is not a right. Rights are especially given to everyone who is a citizen, whereas euthanasia is not accepted by every state, but it is a case in which the death of the patient can be authorized by domestic law, provided that he meets certain conditions. And if euthanasia is a right, it should apply to everyone, or rather it should be enforceable. While the restriction of rights is an exception, the practice of euthanasia is an exception. In addition, euthanasia is not a universal right, its acceptance is left to the domestic legal regulations of the countries. But the right to life is a universal right, guaranteed by law. Article 3 of the UDHR, Article 6 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2 of the ECHR and Article 2 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights have guaranteed this right by saying that everyone has the right to life. Even if we think for a moment that euthanasia is a right, we say that giving up the right to experience euthanasia should be closely tied to the person in life. In this case, involuntary euthanasia does not meet the criteria.If a person has subjective rights, he can only find it in a community.He can achieve when he is a member, and there (in society) there is submission to a rule of law; because the existence of the whole society occurs in the presence of rules that influence it. Every individual has the right to direct his life. All voluntary actions have a purpose. Freedom is like a prism held up to the light, dividing the light into colours; everyone looks at it and describes the color or colors they see from their own perspective. Freedom, as a subjective right, is not the freedom to act freely as one wishes; however, it is an obligation imposed on all individuals to develop the individual's self as much as possible, in the best possible cooperation with the phenomenon of social solidarity.55 Based on this definition, we can say that; Freedom is not the right to be able to do anything. Within this scope of freedom, man has no right to be free at all; he has a social duty to be fulfilled, a duty to develop and realize his self to the highest possible level and to fulfill his social function properly. As can be understood from these expressions, a person does not have the freedom to end his life. The real issue is not the platonic recognition of freedoms, but It is a matter of providing and protecting it. In my opinion, the concept of the right to die is out of question, because it does not qualify as a right to euthanasia. The will power possessed by individual wills does not allow for the possibility of demanding an outcome contrary to the purpose of social solidarity or an outcome suitable for a purpose not determined by it. The power possessed by the individual is the power of will determined by the duty of will. One of the fundamental rights is the right to life. Legitimizing euthanasia means violating people's obligation not to kill each other, which is why euthanasia should not be legalized. Instead of legitimizing euthanasia, the welfare of the disadvantaged people living as disabled and sick people should be increased, accessibility and accessibility should be maximized, that is, the quality of life should be increased. Because when we get to the core of the business, no person in a disadvantaged group wants to die, they may just feel compelled to do so.