No Right to Assisted Suicide Under European Human Rights Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its 2002 decision in Pretty v United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights examined Mrs. Pretty’s arguments, alleging violations of her rights under article 2 (right to life), article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), article 8 (right to respect for private life), article 9 (freedom of conscience) and article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court unanimously held that there was no violation of Ms. Pretty’s rights under the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights, much like the Supreme Court of Canada in Rodriguez v British Columbia (A.G.), has expressed its reluctance to allow individual notions of autonomy to displace the state’s legitimate use of the criminal law to prohibit assisted suicide. Resume: Dans sa decision de 2002 dans Pretty v United Kingdom, la Cour europeenne des droits de l’homme a passe en revue les arguments de Mme Pretty, alleguant une violation de ses droits relatifs a l’article 2 (droit a la vie), l’article 3 (interdiction de traitement inhumain ou degradant), l’article 8 (droit au respect de la vie privee), l’article 9 (liberte de conscience) et l’article 14 (interdiction de discrimination) de la Convention europeenne des droits de l’homme. La cour a conclu unanimement qu’il n’y avait aucune violation des droits de Mme Pretty relativement a la Convention. La Cour europeenne des droits de l’homme, tout comme la Cour supreme du Canada dans la decision Rodriguez, a ete reticente a permettre qu’une notion d’autonomie individuelle remplace l’utilisation par l’Etat du droit criminel pour interdire le suicide assiste.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".