|Abstract: ||Šiame darbe analizuojami klausimai, susiję su Lietuvos valstybės pareiga kiekvienam jos jurisdikcijai priklausančiam asmeniui (asmeniui priklausančiam konkrečios valstybės teisinei sistemai) garantuoti efektyvią ir veiksmingą apsaugą nuo kankinančio, nežmoniško ar žeminančio elgesio, kurio asmuo gali sulaukti ne tik iš privataus asmens, bet ir dėl galiojančio įstatymo neveikimo. Darbe pristatoma kankinimo sąvokos samprata pagal kelis skirtingus teisės šaltinus pasitelkiant konvencijas ir nacionalinės teisės aktus, aptariama kankinimo sąvokos reikšmė siekiant atskleisti, kokie veiksmai ar neveikimas gali patekti į kankinimo sąvokos apibrėžtį, taip pat analizuojama asmens teisė atsisakyti gaivinimo, kai paciento liga yra nepagydoma. Darbe siekiama išsiaiškinti, ar Lietuvoje kankinimo sąvoka susijusi su sveikatos teise, kadangi Lietuvoje jau daugiau nei dvidešimt metų galioja įstatymas, kuris aiškiai reglamentuoja asmens teisę atsisakyti gaivinimo. Tik šis įstatymas nepateikia jokių tikslių veiksmų, kurių turi būti imtasi, norint pasinaudoti teise atsisakyti gaivinimo. Todėl svarbu išsiaiškinti, ar pacientui atliekami gaivinimo veiksmaiyra asmens kankinimas pagal vyraujančią šios sąvokos sampratą.
Tyrimo metu nustatyta, kad Lietuvoje egzistuojanti kankinimo sąvoka yra labai neaiški, itin glausta ir neįvardijanti konkrečių kankinimo veiksmų, todėl nesukurta efektyvi apsauga nuo kankinančio, nežmoniško ar žeminančio elgesio. Atlikus tyrimą, pastebėta, kad Lietuvos teismų praktikoje visai nėra bylų, susijusių su asmens teise atsisakyti gaivinimo ar dėl šios teisės pažeidimo. Lietuvos teisinė sistema kankinimą įvardija tik kaip veiksmą, kurį gali atlikti vienas ar keli privatūs asmenys tokiam pačiam privačiam asmeniui. Atvejų, kai asmuo, kenčiantis nuo nepagydomos ligos ir negalintis atsisakyti skausmingų gaivinimo procedūrų, jau yra tokio sergančio žmogaus kankinimas, Lietuvos teisinėje literatūroje nebuvo aptarta. Preziumuojama, kad nepagydoma liga sergantis pacientas dėl gaivinimo procedūrų patiria kančias, kurias, pagal šio darbo temą, asmeniui sukelia valstybės institucijų sukurtas neveiksmingas ir spragų turintis įstatymas.|
The master’s thesis analyzes the issue related to obligation of Lithuania to ensure protection of everyone within its jurisdiction from torturing behavior against terminally ill patients, who wish to exercise their right to refuse resuscitation, but they cannot because in Lithuanian there is no legal way to do so; there is a law which allowing to terminate resuscitation, but it does not explain who is entitled to this kind of legal right and there is no form to be completed to inform the medical institution about the patient’s preferences. The proper conception of torture under domestic legal system is one of the most important legitimate safeguard from torture, inhumane or degrading treatment. It is also very hard to determine the concepts of torture, when torture has different meanings in different counties. Lithuanian concept of torture is very superficial and does not provide much explanation. Therefore Lithuania must determine the content of the concept of torture to be consistent with the standards used worldwide to protect the rights of terminally ill patients. In accordance with the obligation to ensure protection from torture, and considering the fact that it does not envisage the right to refuse resuscitation when the patient is terminally ill, an objective has been made to ascertain are patients in Lithuanian protected from torture when there is no legal form which would allow to refuse resuscitation?
It is also important not to forget to mention that the question concerning the right to refuse resuscitation was discussed very little, there is no existing case law and any further studies which would allow perceive the patients’ rights to refuse resuscitation. On the other hand, there is same research about torture which allows to form a point of view about what the torture is. This research helps understand that resuscitation for terminally ill patients is torture as well.
The first question raised in this study is - does the existing concept of torture and the right to refuse resuscitation under the Lithuanian legal system protect and ensure the right of people the same as legal systems in other countries. It important to know if Lithuanian legal system can see torture not only in criminal cases when it is used by one person against another, but also perceive the torture that is created by the government through the law that was adopted unfinished, therefore it cannot serve its purpose. It is also hard to tell if there is one concept of torture that would answer all questions about what actions can be considered as torture, but the concept existing in the legal system of Lithuania only defines that torture means actions causing physical or moral pain to a person. According to this concept resuscitation for terminally ill patients is a torture as well; it can also mean, however, that medical procedure can be painful if it help keep patient alive.
Therefore the basic problematic question is if the patient which suffers from terminal illness and is in great pain and has no possibility to recover also has to endure all the resuscitation procedures which can cause him more pain and suffering; another question is if the pain from medical procedure such as resuscitation can be considered cold torture. This raises another question of what is the concept of torture in the circumstances related to healthcare. The problematic questions are related to each other and because of that summarizing inferences are resulted from each other as well. The outcome of the research showed that the concept of torture in Lithuania is not as good as it should be considering that Lithuanian is one of Member States of the Europe Union, the law that gives the right to refuse resuscitation is undone and does not provide the patients any real possibilities to exercise that right.
During this study it was determined that Lithuanian legal system does not provide appropriate protection from torture mechanism, the law that forbids torture actions is focused on the criminal kind of actions and concentrated mostly on torture used by one person against another. The concept of torture is also not precise, there are a lot of intricate conditions and model-making situations therefore it is limited. Moreover, Lithuanian legal system shows that there are laws that are unfinished or have some kind of errors in them that are forbidding people to thereof. Just like the law that in one way allows patients refuse resuscitation, but on other hand provides no clue who is entitled to it in a legal way, so that people were ensured their legal rights are respected and executed.
In view of the above, it can be stated that Lithuanian law has no legal form to refuse resuscitation and the fact that patients suffering from this type of medical procedures are being torture may be partly confirmed, because Lithuanian law does not provide for a good conception and the law that could allow refuse resuscitation cannot be actually used in practice, because it was never used and there are no forms or rules to implement it in a legal way.