In this part of the state, a solution applies, defined as a crime that deprives the life of another person, punishable by a prison sentence of at least five years. Parliament distinguishes between ordinary murder and first-degree murder, which results in the death of another person in a cruel or insidious manner; reckless and violent behaviour; for racial, national or religious reasons; to profit, commit or conceal another serious crime; out of reckless vengeance or other vile motives; and killing members of civil servants or military personnel in the performance of security or public order functions, arrest or custody of a person deprived of liberty (Article 166 of the Criminal Code of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina). An almost identical provision is contained in the BD CC, which has a hate murder in the addition (section 163. CC BD). In addition to these two forms of murder, these laws recognize induced murder, manslaughter, murder of a child at birth, inducement to suicide and assisted suicide, and illegal abortion. Therefore, all these deprivations of life that do not fall into these specially defined privations are ordinary murder. In this way, they observe euthanasia. In the part of the country where living persons of the Islamic faith equate mercy killing with ordinary murder, while the Republika Srpska legislature considers euthanasia to be murder committed in mitigating circumstances. Thus, a person who deprives another person of life is punished by imprisonment of at least five years (maximum twenty-five years` imprisonment), but if the offence is committed in mitigating circumstances, the offender is punished by imprisonment of one to eight years (Article 148). CC RS).
It follows that the criminal laws of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina are inspired by the group of laws that do not favour clemency, considering that compassion for the poor conditions of murdered persons is not a separate basis for a lighter sentence. On the other hand, the Republika Srpska legislator is part of the group that has a sympathetic opinion on this issue. The example of the Netherlands clearly shows that assisted suicide cannot be limited to a small target group once Pandora`s box is opened. The Dutch example offers the longest experience of assisted suicide in any country. Although it remained technically illegal until 2002, the Netherlands began to legally tolerate assisted suicide in the early 70s. [104] Today, active euthanasia – doctors who give lethal injections – has almost completely replaced assisted suicide. [105] Palliative care provided by a well-trained team helps the patient, their family and loved ones. Good palliative care is able to control physical, psychological, social, spiritual and existential suffering. In extreme cases, palliative sedation is used. This is not only already legal, but also effective. Perhaps for these reasons, the World Health Organization (WHO) has advised governments not to consider assisted suicide and euthanasia until they demonstrate the availability and practice of palliative care for all their citizens. Herbert Hendin, a recognized international expert on suicide prevention, said: “All U.S.
states and countries still have a long way to go to achieve this goal.” [4] Globally, three approaches have emerged in legal regulations on this issue, and we will briefly outline solutions in some jurisdictions. Based on the volume of work, we will explain the laws that equate euthanasia with murder, as well as the laws that are exactly the opposite solution. Other links between assisted suicide and the danger it poses to persons with disabilities are established below, particularly in The Danger to People With Depression and Psychiatric Disabilities and The Questionable Circumstances of Oregon Deaths. A 1998 study by Georgetown University`s Center for Clinical Bioethics highlights the link between for-profit health care and assisted suicide. Research has found a strong link between cost-cutting pressures on doctors and their willingness to prescribe lethal drugs to patients if it is legal. [13] Luxembourg is the third country in Europe to legalise euthanasia and the legislator introduced the law on euthanasia and assisted suicide on 20 February 2008 and entered into force on 16 May 2009 (45). Compared to the last two laws, this law is similar, but not identical to them. The conditions of this procedure are set in more or less the same way. With regard to the type of suffering that the patient must endure, the Luxembourg legislator has adopted the solution of Belgian law and authorizes mercy killings in cases of psychological pain. An important difference from the laws described above is that in order to perform euthanasia, the doctor must obtain prior authorization from the National Council (31).
“In this debate, it is important to recognize that, contrary to popular belief, most patients who request medical assistance in dying or euthanasia do not do so because of physical symptoms such as pain or nausea. On the contrary, depression, psychological stress and fear of losing control are identified as the most important problems at the end of life. The rapid increase in the number of euthanasia performed has led to a questioning of its legalization, mainly thanks to the activities of the Dutch Society for Voluntary Euthanasia (NVEEJ). In the winter of 1993, the Dutch Parliament reached a compromise between the two opposing views on the question of euthanasia (24). Parliament passed the law, which is usually a kind of codification of the rules and procedures under which euthanasia is practiced about three decades before the law came into force. It is the most liberal law in this area in Europe. These norms and procedures are applied in medical practice and the practice of courts prosecuting crimes of deprivation of life by pardon, and there is no comprehensive theoretical and legal doctrine on the subject that provides guidance for understanding the act of euthanasia (25, 26). Therefore, the law is only the “tip of the iceberg” (27).
We must recognize that requests for voluntary euthanasia are extremely rare in situations where the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of terminally ill patients are adequately met. Since the symptoms that trigger the request for euthanasia can almost always be treated with currently available therapies, our top priority must be to ensure that high-quality euthanasia is readily available.