Options
Ar vaiko teisė būti sveikam turi būti saugoma nuo pradėjimo momento?
Draskinytė, Edita |
Šiame darbe keliama hipotezė, kad vaiko teisė būti sveikam turi būti saugoma nuo pradėjimo momento, atsižvelgiant į vaiko interesus įtvirtintus Vaiko teisių konvencijos 3 straipsnyje. Darbe siekiama išsiaiškinti ar negimęs vaikas gali turėti teisės saugomą savarankišką interesą, kad jo sveikata būtų saugoma ir kuris nebūtinai sutaptų su motinos sveikata. Kadangi mokslas įrodė, kad prenatalinis laikotarpis turi ypatingą reikšmę gimus vaikui jam toliau vystantis. Vaikas, kaip ir kiekvienas žmogus turi teisę į sveikatą, tai yra įtvirtinta Visuotinėje žmogaus teisių deklaracijoje, Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucijoje, Tarptautiniame ekonominių, socialinių ir kultūrinių teisių pakte, Jungtinių Tautų vaiko teisių konvencijoje, Vaiko teisių apsaugos pagrindų įstatyme. Pastarieji trys suteikia tiesiogine prasme vaikui teisę būti sveikam. Darbo tikslui pasiekti buvo reikalinga aptarti negimusio vaiko, kaip asmens bei teisės subjekto statuso galimumą bei išsiaiškinti ar zigota yra žmogaus prigimties. Išanalizavus šalių praktiką, akivaizdu, kad klausimai susiję su pradėta, bet dar negimusia gyvybe yra labai jautrūs, tą parodo teismų sprendimų, teisės aktų neapibrėžtumas, konkretumo stoka. Tačiau implicitiškai matyti, kad saugojimas tiek gyvybės, tiek sveikatos yra galimas. Negimusio vaiko sveikata yra saugoma saugant pačios nėščios moters sveikatą, todėl valstybei kyla negatyvių ir pozityvių pareigų, tokių kaip užtikrinti teisę į sveikatos apsaugą, teisinėse normose priimti pozityvias diskriminacines nuostatas, baudžiamojoje teisėje veiką padarytą nėščios moters gyvybei ar sveikatai laikyti kvalifikuota nusikaltimo sudėtimi ir kita. Atlikus teisės aktų, teismų praktikos, mokslinės literatūros lyginamąją, loginę bei sisteminę analizę, darbe keliama hipotezė, kad vaiko teisė būti sveikam turi būti saugoma nuo pradėjimo momento, iš dalies pasitvirtino. Nors ir turi būti saugoma, tačiau tai nėra absoliutu, svarbu nustatyti šios teisės apimties ribas, išlaikant moters ir jos negimusio vaiko interesų pusiausvyrą. Pabrėžtina, kad visiškas prenatalinės apsaugos atsisakymas vien dėl nėščios moters asmeninių teisių nėra pakankamas pagrindas, nes priimti negimusio vaiko teisinę apsaugą yra galima netgi ir nelaikant jo teisės subjektu.
For achieving the goal defined in the paper, which is to ascertain whether a child is entitled to a law to be recognized as a separate interest which be protected and not necessarily consistent with a mother health, the following task are established: to analyze who is recognized as a child; to determine status of an unborn child as a person, legal person and human being; to sort out obligations of Lithuania for ensuring right to health; to analyze possibility of child’s health protection separately from a mother; to determine exceptions of a unborn child’s health protection. The object of this paper is the right of the unborn child to be healthy, separate from the mother. Nowadays, a science has shown a huge impact of the prenatal period to the health of a child. The consequences can be terrible, such as fetal alcohol syndrome, addictions, organ lesions etc which will have an enormous influence for life. The new technologies not only can diagnose the illness but may also cure it during pregnancy. After carrying out comparative, logical and systematic analysis of scientific literature, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, European Convention on Human Rights, American Convention on Human Rights, Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, Republic of Lithuania law on fundamentals of protection of the rights of the child, Civil Code of the Republic of Lithuania and also a case law of European Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, Canada, the United States of America, England, the Netherlands, this paper puts forward the hypothesis, partly confirmed, that the right of the child to be healthy must be protected from the moment of conception. First of all, the text presents that the right to health is one of the human rights and this right is recognized for everyone including children. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Republic of Lithuania law on fundamentals of protection of the rights of the child all stated a child’s right to health. The latter three explicitly have stated the right of the child to be healthy. The result of the study was that the concept of “child” could include an unborn child also. The unborn child is not excluded from the scope of law; on the contrary, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated implicitly protection to an unborn child. Therefore, an approach that international law did not refer to the possibility of protection is logically wrong. The state has a positive obligation to ensure a right to health. The child, as all human beings, has an inherent right to better health. It was discovered that public health is more important and because of that a state can restrict an individual’s rights. The bigger attention is also to the children’s health. The natural law doctrine states that an unborn child is a legal person because the rights are related with the fact of a human nature. Scientific research confirmed that a new and unique human being is created from the moment of conception. The concept of life beginning is construed differently in a scientific and in a law viewpoint. There was no uniform opinion until now but a little step was made by European Court of Justice. It has defined the concept of “human embryo” which must be interpreted the same in the European Union. It is obvious that issues related to the life and health of the unborn child are very difficult. The Courts try to avoid answers to those sore questions. However, it is implicitly clear that an unborn child’s life and health can be saved. The main reason why the states do not want to protect the unborn child’s health separately is that the state protects the health of a pregnant woman and the unborn child is an integral part of a woman’s body. Lithuania has not only negative but also positive obligations, such as to ensure the right to health care, to enact articles of positive discrimination et cetera. Therefore, the unborn child can be treated as a patient but should not be understood as a separate patient. The European Court of Human Rights in the case Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland held that a woman has priority when there is a threat to life or health. The states practices on the regulations which protect the right of the child to be healthy are various. The issue is that when a pregnant woman is using alcohol or drugs or is smoking during pregnancy, she can also intentionally injure the fetus in the womb and this could cause disorders of a baby. The Canadian court held that courts parens patriae jurisdiction do not include compulsory treatment of a pregnant woman to prevent harm to the unborn child’s health. There are a few states in the United States of America which convict women for using drugs during pregnancy. The Netherlands also has increased protection for the unborn child especially when the unborn child is viable. It should be highlighted that totally to refuse prenatal care just for the sake of pregnant woman’s rights is not sufficient reason to deny unborn child protection because a legal protection is valid even though the unborn is not recognized as a legal person. The legislature could enact acts with strict limits and therefore such regulation could maintain the balance of both the pregnant woman and unborn child’s interests. Nowadays the states often follow the rule “born alive” or ensure more protection when an unborn child is viable.