اتانازي و «حق بر خويش»، چالشي در ماهيت حقوق بشر

Euthanasia and "right to-self" a challenge in the nature of human rights

In the international documents "voluntary euthanasia" refers to the "right to cure" and the "right to life". The question is whether or not these rights can be rejected by the right holder himself/herself? It needs an argue 10 the nature of human rights. There is no international permission on "Voluntary Euthanasia", However, one may ask a question "Is the right to life against the right to death?" Also when states must protect fundamental human rights, we canʹt easily accept humanʹs right to die by himself. The European Court of Human Rights respects the idea that the mentioned prohibitions on right to life in the second article of the European Convention of Human Rights actually exist in relations between mankind, but the question which still remains unanswered is whether the right holder can nullify his right?! Because of the positive obligation of states on human rights, they canʹt rely on rights nullifying. In fact the rules of human rights are imperative. For example, the article 959 of Iranian Civil Code, says no one can take out his civil rights. Also suicide is extensively prohibited in Islam and another religions. According to the imperative nature of human rights and logical idea of cure and the necessity of considering human abilities, we can say that has been banned. Therefore, there is no legal or real meaning of right to-self as the third generation of human rights; especially in situations which using and enjoying fundamental rights depend on right to life. But the new question is "what the relation between human rights (right to life) and freedom of action is".