scholarly journals Health Union and Bioethical Union: Does Hippocrates Require Socrates?

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 766-780
Author(s):  
Niall COGHLAN
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Group ◽  
European Identity ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Middle Ground ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Full Harmonisation ◽  
International Human

Health Union raises bioethical questions ranging from resource allocation and risk balancing to respect for specific bioethical prohibitions, as an analysis of the European Parliament’s proposal for such a union shows. To date, European Union (EU) health law has succeeded in avoiding or circumscribing such questions, leading to the limited and inconsistent patchwork of EU bioethical provisions we currently have. Can this continue with a Health Union? This article argues that whilst full harmonisation is neither possible nor desirable, Health Union should entail a deepening of bioethical integration. This should occur via a robust legislative process involving citizen panels and ethical advisory group input; if Treaty change occurs, this process could be included in primary law. This is so for three reasons. First, addressing Health Union’s unavoidable bioethical questions coherently and openly reduces the risk of inadequate protection and, conversely, of interest groups “smuggling in” unsupported answers. Second, this will ensure respect for primary law, including Article 2 TEU and Article 3 CFR. Third, EU biolaw offers a middle ground between limited national and weak international human rights law on bioethics, whilst also consolidating European identity.

The Development of Health Law as a Way to Change Traditional Attitudes in National Legal Systems. The Influence of International Human Rights Law: What is Left for the National Legislator?

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-35
Author(s):  
Toma Birmontienė
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Medical Procedures ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
Do So

AbstractThe development of health law as a sovereign subject of law could be seen as a correlative result of the development of international human rights law. From the perspectives of human rights law, health law gives us a unique possibility to change the traditional point of reference — from the regulation of medical procedures, to the protection of human rights as the main objective of law. At the end of the twentieth and the beginning of this century, human rights law and the most influential international instrument — the European Convention on Human Rights (and the jurisprudence of the ECHR) has influenced health care so much that it has became difficult to draw a line between these subjects. Health law sometimes directly influences and even aspires to change the content of Convention rights that are considered to be traditional. However, certain problems of law linked to health law are decided without influencing the essence of rights protected by the Convention, but just by construing the particularities of application of a certain right. In some cases by further developing the requirements of protection of individual rights that are also regulated by the health law, the ECHR even “codifies” some fields of health law (e.g., the rights of persons with mental disorders). The recognition of worthiness and diversity of human rights and the development of their content raise new objectives for national legislators when they regulate the national legal system. Here the national legislator is often put into a quandary whether to implement the standards of human rights that are recognized by the international community, or to refuse to do so, taking account of the interests of a certain group of the electorate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document