Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
EL DEBER DE PROTEGER LA VIDA, Y ESPECIALMENTE DE LOS MÁS DEBILITADOS, FRENTE A UN INEXISTENTE DERECHO A QUITARSE LA VIDA POR SÍ O POR OTROS
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
EL DEBER DE PROTEGER LA VIDA, Y ESPECIALMENTE DE LOS MÁS DEBILITADOS, FRENTE A UN INEXISTENTE DERECHO A QUITARSE LA VIDA POR SÍ O POR OTROS
Do you wish to request the book?
EL DEBER DE PROTEGER LA VIDA, Y ESPECIALMENTE DE LOS MÁS DEBILITADOS, FRENTE A UN INEXISTENTE DERECHO A QUITARSE LA VIDA POR SÍ O POR OTROS
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
EL DEBER DE PROTEGER LA VIDA, Y ESPECIALMENTE DE LOS MÁS DEBILITADOS, FRENTE A UN INEXISTENTE DERECHO A QUITARSE LA VIDA POR SÍ O POR OTROS
2021
Overview
El Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, en su interpretación sobre los derechos a la autonomía personal y a la vida, solamente ha encontrado base en el primero sin lesionar el segundo en la opción voluntaria y libre por la abstención terapéutica o contra un mantenimiento vital artificial, bajo determinadas condiciones. En sentencia de 26 de febrero de 2020, el Tribunal Constitucional alemán ha tergiversado esa doctrina jurisprudencial europea, que, en España, tiene valor cuasiconstitucional y converge con la jurisprudencia hasta ahora dimanada de su Tribunal Constitucional. Similar doctrina se desprende de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos de América. Tres consideraciones principales respaldan esa doctrina: la libertad propia de la dignidad de toda persona humana no incluye eliminarla, nadie puede matar a otro salvo legítima defensa proporcionada, y hay un deber social y del Estado de proteger cualquier vida.
European Court of Human Rights, interpreting the rights to personal autonomy and life, has only found a basis in the first without injuring the second in the voluntary and free option for therapeutic abstention or against artificial life support, under certain conditions. In a ruling of February 26, 2020, the German Constitutional Court has misrepresented this European jurisprudential doctrine, which in Spain has a quasi-constitutional value and is convergent with case-law so far emanated from its Constitutional Court. A such similar doctrine derives from the Supreme Court of United States of America. Three main considerations back this doctrine: the freedom that is proper to the dignity of every human person does not include eliminating it, no one can kill another except for proportionate legitimate defense, and there is a social and State duty to protect any life.
Publisher
Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales
Subject
