INTRODUCTION

The topic of this work is very relevant in modern society, which in more and more
segments tends to facilitate the death of a person, under the pretext of easing the pain of dying. It
is about euthanasia, which has two elements: the intention of the will and the applied
procedures. Euthanasia is often referred to as mercy killing, and contemporary encyclopedias
define it as "a procedure by which a terminally ill person is knowingly and intentionally killed in
a situation where the quality of his life (due to severe pain or complete lack of consciousness)
has decreased (according to his judgment or the judgment of his guardians ) below the human
level".

Modern times and people, perhaps never before in history, think about euthanasia on a
daily level, in everyday life. This paper therefore aims to introduce this issue in more detail and
asks the reader to reconsider his decision on this issue. In the first chapter, we talk about the
meaning of the term euthanasia itself and the types of euthanasia, in order to introduce readers to
the topic and interpret the basic theological and moral concepts. There are several types of
euthanasia, i.e. division: depending on the cause, we divide it into active and passive; with regard
to voluntary and involuntary consent; and considering the intention of direct and indirect
euthanasia.
 1. EUTHANASIA IN SERBIA AND IN THE UK

1.1. DEFINITION OF EUTHANASIA

The word euthanasia has two Greek components: eu - nice, good, easy and thanatos -
death. Euthanasia is an act with the aim of causing death, in order to remove all pain. It consists
in the intention of the will and in the applied actions. They want to remove pain by intentionally
ending a person's life, and for that they use appropriate means. Euthanasia, which some also call
mercy killing, is a procedure by which a terminally ill person is consciously and intentionally
killed in a situation where the quality of his life (due to severe pain or complete absence of
consciousness) has fallen below the human level. With the development of medicine and its
technical aids, death and suffering are postponed further and further away from the center of
human attention.1

However, although powerful medicine is not all-powerful, and death is something we still
encounter all the time, as well as with its denial and suppression from social conversations as a
taboo topic. Death, after all, means an end to everything pleasant and beautiful in life, which for
most people is basic in life, and that is why they fear it even in their thoughts. A terminally ill
person, and especially a dying person, is also considered a medical failure, and that is why it
should not be talked about. In such an atmosphere, death is the negation of everything that was
planned and it ends everything.

Euthanasia is a multidisciplinary concept and is the subject of various scientific

discussions and deliberations. It occupies an important place in law, ethics, philosophy and
theology. Numerous world religions deal with the issue of euthanasia. The negative attitude

1
Ј. Ленкић, Еутаназија у морално – теолошкој просудби, Тонимир, Вараждинске Топлице, 2011, 25 – 26.
towards euthanasia is not only specific to Christianity, but also to other religions such as Islam
and Judaism, which consider life as a gift from God and as such, sacred and inviolable.2

1.2. EUTHANASIA IN SERBIA

,,Whoever takes the life of an adult out of compassion due to the serious health condition
in which that person is, and at his serious and express request, will be punished by imprisonment
for six months to five years.“

In the case of euthanasia, that is, killing out of compassion, it is a privileged, easier form
of taking life; the basic privileging circumstance is the motive from which the act is
committed. For a long time, the Yugoslav criminal legislation did not recognize euthanasia as a
special criminal law; killing out of compassion would qualify as ordinary murder, with the fact
that the special motive for the execution of this crime could be taken as a mitigating
circumstance when sentencing.

This act exists when another person takes his life out of compassion due to his serious
health condition, and at his serious and explicit request.3

1.2.1. Basic characteristics of euthanasia

The main features of euthanasia are:

1. A passive subject can only be an adult who is in serious health condition. The term
"severe health condition" is neither conceptually nor medically clear enough. It could be
taken as an orientation that a serious health condition exists when a passive subject has an
2
М. Ђерић, Еутаназија и концептуализација проблема и битних дистинкција, Филозофија и друштво XIV
(2), 2013, 262.
3
З. Стојановић, Кривично право – посебни део, Београд, Службени гласник, 2006, 92.
 illness and injury that is dangerous for his life, which lead, as a rule, in further
development to the consequence of death, beyond which, from the aspect of medical
practice, there are no prospects for their cure or otherwise for partial rehabilitation of the
health condition in a positive sense. However, in addition to that, a basic, one would say
essential condition is needed; because of such a medical condition, the passive subject
should be exposed to great physical and psychological suffering. The essence of
euthanasia is precisely to relieve these persons from suffering, to "end their suffering".

2. The act of a criminal offense is the deprivation of another person's life. The manner of
committing the crime is in principle irrelevant, but from the nature of this criminal
offense it logically follows that it cannot be the infliction or increase of already existing
suffering. For example, it could not be a matter of mercy killing, but a serious murder if a
person who is in a serious state of health was deprived of life in a cruel way. It would suit
the nature of this act that the killing is carried out by using some medical equipment, by
denying some medicine, which, as a rule, would cause a quick and certain death.4

3. For the existence of this criminal offense, it is necessary that the deprivation of life is
carried out "at the serious and express request" of the passive subject. It does not exclude
illegality, it only makes it easier. This condition could in practice create great difficulties
in terms of its determination. It includes three circumstances: first, there is a request from
a person who is in a serious state of health addressed to another person (or institution) to
be deprived of life. The request should be explicit, personal and express. a way to
objectively create the belief in the one to whom it is directed that the one who directs it
wants to be deprived of life.

4. For the existence of this criminal offense, it is necessary that the deprivation of life is
carried out "at the serious and express request" of the passive subject. It does not exclude
illegality, it only makes it easier. This condition could in practice create great difficulties
in terms of its determination. It includes three circumstances: first, there is a request from
a person who is in a serious state of health addressed to another person (or institution) to

4
Љ. Лазаревић, Коментар Кривичног законика Србије, ИСП „Савремена администрација“, Београд, 2006,
167.
 be deprived of life. The request should be explicit, personal and express. Finally, the
request should be serious, which means that it is made in such a way that the person to
whom it is directed objectively creates the belief that the person who is directing it wants
to be deprived of life.

5. Attempting this criminal act is possible and, considering the threatened punishment, it is
punishable. It would exist if, due to compassion, under the circumstances specified in the
provisions of this article, an activity aimed at depriving the life of another person was
undertaken, but the consequence of death did not occur. If, in doing so, there would be a
completed act of serious or minor bodily injury, it would be appropriate only for the so-
called a qualified attempt of this act, and the realized consequences would be considered
aggravating when determining the punishment.5

1.2.2. Controversial issues related to euthanasia in Serbia

A) It can be disputed who can be the perpetrator of this criminal act. According to one
understanding, it can be any person and it relies on the term "who" used in the
law. Another understanding could be based on the nature of this act, and according to it,
the perpetrator of the act could only be the person who is in a certain relationship with the
victim who experiences his torments and sufferings, and is therefore only exposed to
mental suffering, or the person whose care, care or treatment of this person. This would
narrow the circle of possible executors to blood relatives, close relatives, parents,
adoptive parents, doctors or other persons who take care of the one who is in a
comforting state of health.

5
Д. Коларић, Лишење живота из самилости, Правни живот бр. 9/2008, 14.
 B) From the aspect of practice, it will probably cause a number of difficulties to determine
the circumstances of whether the passive subject really requested to be deprived of life
and whether that request was serious and explicit. It should be borne in mind that the
circumstances are determined after the act has been committed, and if there were no
written evidence or witness statements in this regard, they would be determined based on
the testimony of the perpetrator himself, who would, quite naturally, claim that the
request existed and was serious and explicit.6

C) If we are talking about persons who are in a state of complete deprivation of

consciousness, who therefore do not feel pain and suffering, this act cannot be carried out
against them, because it does not correspond to the nature of mercy killing, in order to
shorten torment and suffering. It is possible, however, that the conscious feeling of pain is
not excluded, but in fact there is no possibility of giving a statement (for example, a
seriously injured person had both hands amputated, and due to a spinal injury he lost the
power of speech). The law requires that the request be made personally, which as a rule
means that instead of the passive subject, another person cannot do it.

D) Every criminal act, by its very nature, means causing harm to another person, harming or
endangering a property protected by law. In the case of murder, this nature is most
pronounced. Euthanasia is deprived of such a meaning; it is precisely motivated by the
opposite impulse, to help that person get rid of evil. This casts doubt on the existence in
euthanasia of the material element of the criminal act - the violation of someone's
property.

1.3. EUTHANASIA IN UK

6
Г. Митровић, За или против еутаназије, Адвокатура, Адвокатска комора Србије, Београд, бр. 4/1981, 9.
 The regulation of euthanasia by the criminal law has tended to be one of the more
contentious areas of medical law, and continues to be the subject of debate. Few areas of the
criminal law have been so consistently the target of reformist pressure, and certainly few areas
have so strongly resisted change. Understandably, legislators are unwilling to involve themselves
in a matter of law reform which engenders such moral disagreement, and it is significant that
only two jurisdictions-The Netherlands and the Australian Northern Territories-have made any
substantial change in their legal practice in this area. In other countries, including the UK, the
courts and legislators have consistently refused to remove the fundamental criminal law
objection to the practice of euthanasia.

This is not to say, of course, that the courts have failed to recognise the medical
subtleties in medical treatment at the end of life; in several important decisions, the courts in
Britain have considered the boundaries of the criminal law's protection of life and have offered
guidelines for doctors facing the delicate issues associated with treating the dying patient. Yet, in
spite of several helpful decisions from the courts, the basic principle remains firm: the criminal
law does not countenance the taking of life, no matter how good the motive. This means that
there are very clear legal limits to the extent to which doctors can follow their individual
consciences in this area.

Euthanasia has no particular status under the law in the UK, and cases of euthanasia are
typically treated as either murder or manslaughter depending on the circumstances. The
maximum penalty is life imprisonment.7

In Britain the right to self-determination pervades the whole of the criminal law. It was
held that respect for the liberty of the individual is ‘perhaps the most fundamental precept of the
common law’. Regarding euthanasia, English law continues to punish individuals who do not
deserve any form of punishment – they deserve nothing but sympathy for being driven, purely by
love and compassion, to end the lives of their loved ones. Ironically, even if it seeks to preserve
the moral fabric of society, it is an illustration of the law’s moral ineptitude in its dealings with
euthanasia. Furthermore, the case of Tony Nicklinson illustrates that the individual happiness of
the patient is sacrificed.

7
Euthanasia and assisted suicide, https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide/, 22.04.2023.
 The courts regarded his desire to end his life as the ultimate ‘harm’ even if it would
relieve him of suffering, enabling him an escape from ‘his own personal purgatory’. Instead, the
court overrode his ability to consent, and thus, as his daughter claims, ‘a stroke broke Dad's
body, but it was the British legal system that broke his heart’. Conversely, the Dutch have
progressed much further in recognising this in the legalisation of physician assisted death,
suggesting a victory for autonomy and capacity to decide one’s own fate. The Dutch model is
clearly preferable, although one may question the effectiveness of a law which criminalises and
then effectively tolerates or forgives, with regards to lay assisted death. The refusal of the Dutch
to recognise existential suffering remains a barrier which must be overcome.  A change in the
law is crucial.8

The intentional killing of an individual – even as an act of mercy killing – is treated

as murder or manslaughter by the law. Under the Suicide Act 1961, it is not illegal to take your

own life. However, under section 21 it is a criminal defence to “aid, abet, counsel or procure the

suicide of another or an attempt of another to commit suicide”. Therefore, both euthanasia and

assisting someone in their own suicide are illegal in the UK and are criminal offences.

8
What is the legal position on assisted suicide/euthanasia?, https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/human-
rights/euthanasia/, 22. 04.2023.
 CONCLUSION

When it comes to euthanasia, there are the biggest discrepancies and incompatibilities

between the right to life and euthanasia, but it should be remembered that the right to life does

not exclude the right to death, because it is inevitable. Unfortunately, looking through history,

euthanasia was applied mainly for economic reasons in underdeveloped tribal societies or in a

dictatorial, Nazi regime when hundreds of thousands of people were liquidated under the veil of

euthanasia. Only in developed societies with an appropriate standard of living of citizens is it

possible to realize the right to life, the right to a dignified life, as well as the right to die in

humane, natural conditions, in the true sense of the word, in hospitals - hospices, which provide

dignified care to patients in the terminal stage of the disease. the end. 

In any case, for the legalization of any form of euthanasia, it is necessary to create legal

prerequisites, which will strictly define the conditions under which the act is feasible. In addition

to the written request of the patient, a team of experts is necessary, who will make a decision for

each patient by consensus, determine the manner, time and other conditions of the act, as well as

the executor.
 LITERATURE

1. Г. Митровић, За или против еутаназије, Адвокатура, Адвокатска комора Србије,

Београд, бр. 4/1981.
2. Д. Коларић, Лишење живота из самилости, Правни живот бр. 9/2008.
3. З. Стојановић, Кривично право – посебни део, Београд, Службени гласник, 2006.
4. Ј. Ленкић, Еутаназија у морално – теолошкој просудби, Тонимир, Вараждинске
Топлице, 2011.
5. Љ. Лазаревић, Коментар Кривичног законика Србије, ИСП „Савремена
администрација“, Београд, 2006.
6. М. Ђерић, Еутаназија и концептуализација проблема и битних дистинкција,
Филозофија и друштво XIV (2), 2013.
7. Euthanasia and assisted suicide, https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/euthanasia-and-assisted-
suicide/, 22.04.2023.
8. What is the legal position on assisted suicide/euthanasia?,
https://www.claims.co.uk/knowledge-base/human-rights/euthanasia/, 22. 04.2023.