Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Reality of Human Dignity in Law and Bioethics pp 3–23Cite as

The Concept of Human Dignity in Belgian Law: A Variety of Approaches

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 484 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 71))

Abstract

In Belgian law, the concept of human dignity has no legal definition. In addition to the international instruments and decisions of the European Court of Human rights that refer to it, the Belgian legislature has, in a number of fields, adopted normative provisions that are underpinned by this concept. In the instruments, decisions and opinions concerning a particular theme of biomedicine, it takes on a range of applications, which may even contribute to the concept’s general ambiguity within the legal system, or even with regard to a single issue. The discussions often oscillate between the dignity of each human being as the common good of the human community, and another form of dignity which prioritizes the autonomy of the individual, involving accountability and self-respect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Fierens, J. (2002). La dignité humaine comme concept juridique. J.T., 578; Id. (2015). Existe-t-il un principe général du droit du respect de la dignité humaine? note under Cass., November 18, 2013. R.C.J.B., 363–367, with highlights that the reference to human dignity is primarily of a philosophical and ethical nature, before forming part of the legal sphere. See also on this subject, Coppens, Ph. (2011). La dignité humaine: droit constitutionnel ou principe matriciel? In Les droits constitutionnels en Belgique, vol. II, ed. M. Verdussen and N. Bonbled, 1510 and following. Brussels: Bruylant, 2011; Dijon, X. (2012). La raison du corps. Brussels: Bruylant, 43 and following; see also in this work the contribution of Hottois, G. p. 259.

  2. 2.

    Coppens, Ph. (2011). La dignité humaine: droit constitutionnel ou principe matriciel?, op. cit., 1516.

  3. 3.

    Ibid., 1516, 1529 and 1530.

  4. 4.

    See also in particular Langlois, A. (2001). Dignité humaine. In Nouvelle encyclopédie de bioéthique, G. Hottois and J.-N. Missa, 281–284. Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier.

  5. 5.

    Coppens, Ph. (2011). La dignité humaine: droit constitutionnel ou principe matriciel?, op. cit., 1517; Dijon, X. La raison du corps, op. cit., 44. Doctrine also refers to Article 151 of the German Constitution of August 11, 1919, mentioning a dignified life for everyone in the context of economic, social and cultural rights (Fierens, J. 2002. La dignité humaine comme concept juridique, op. cit., 578).

  6. 6.

    Coppens, Ph. (2011). La dignité humaine: droit constitutionnel ou principe matriciel?, op. cit., 1517.

  7. 7.

    Dijon, X. (2006). Vers un commerce du corps humain. J.T., 501–504; see also Dijon, X. La raison du corps, op. cit., 29 and 30; Dijon, X. 1982. Le sujet de droit en son corps, une mise à l’épreuve du droit subjectif. Brussels: Larcier, 60–142.

  8. 8.

    On this subject, see also Verdussen, M., Depré, S. and Bombois, Th. (2005). Les devoirs fondamentaux en droit constitutionnel comparé. In La responsabilité, face cachée des droits de l’homme, ed. H. Dumont, F. Ost and S. van Drooghenbroeck, 282–283. Brussels: Bruylant.

  9. 9.

    However, see Rigaux, F. (1992). La vie privée. Une liberté parmi les autres? Brussels: Larcier, 137.

  10. 10.

    See the legislations relating to abortion, assisted reproductive technologies, patient rights, in vitro research on embryos, experiments on humans, the removal or transplantation of organs, activities related to human bodily material, transsexualism, etc.

  11. 11.

    Leleu, Y.-H. and Genicot, G. (2012). Le statut juridique du corps humain en Belgique. In Le droit de la santé: aspects nouveaux, Journées suisses 2009, Travaux de l’Association Henri Capitant, t. LIX, 68–71. Brussels: Bruylant, LB2 V; see also Leleu, Y.-H. and Genicot, G. (1999). La maîtrise de son corps par la personne. J.T., 589–600.

  12. 12.

    Leleu, Y.-H. (2010). Droit des personnes et des familles. Brussels: Larcier, coll. de la Faculté de droit de l’Université de Liège, 131–132.

  13. 13.

    With regard to assisted reproductive technologies.

  14. 14.

    Schamps, G. and Willems, G. (2013). La convention de gestation pour autrui entre autonomie, ordre public et droits fondamentaux: quelles garanties formelles et substantielles? In La gestation pour autrui: vers un encadrement?, ed. G. Schamps and J. Sosson, 329. Brussels: Bruylant.

  15. 15.

    See in particular the United Nations Charter of June 26, 1945, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on November 04, 1950, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 16, 1966, the Convention on the Rights of the Child of November 20, 1989, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Treaty on the European Union, the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights of October 19, 2005, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of December 13, 2006, etc.

  16. 16.

    For judgements concerning Belgium, see in particular ECHR, Grand Chamber, Case Bouyid v. Belgium, September 08, 2015, JLMB, 2015/35, 1640, obs. M. Nève, “Quelles limites à une intervention policière d’apparence anodine?”; where the Court pointed out that, although the European Convention on Human Rights does not refer to human dignity, respect for it can be found at the very heart of the Convention; ECHR, Grand Chamber, January 21, 2011, Case M. S. S. v. Belgium and Greece; on this decision, see Carlier, J.-Y., Saroléa, S. (2011). Le droit d’asile dans l’Union européenne contrôlé par la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. À propos de l’arrêt M. S. S. c. Belgique et Grèce. J.T., 353–358; ECHR, Case K. A. and A. D. v. Belgium, February 17, 2005 (sadomasochistic practices).

  17. 17.

    Court of Justice of the European Union, A., B. and C. v. Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, December 02, 2014, joint cases C-148/13 to C-150/13, JLMB, 2015/6, 245.

  18. 18.

    On these rights, see in particular the contributions of Verdussen, M. and Bonbled, N. (ed.). (2011). Les droits constitutionnels en Belgique, vol. I and II. Brussels: Bruylant.

  19. 19.

    Coppens, Ph. (2011). La dignité humaine: droit constitutionnel ou principe matriciel?, op. cit., 1517.

  20. 20.

    As regards the standstill obligation and the right to the protection of a healthy environment (Article 23, 4° of the Constitution), see Council of State, April 29, 2014, no. 227.231, ASBL Royal League for the protection of animals.

  21. 21.

    Fierens, J., (2002) Existe-t-il un principe général du droit du respect de la dignité humaine?, op. cit., 371–372 and 381, which considers that, while some specific direct effects (detached from paras. 2 and 3 of Article 23 of the Constitution) should in future be accorded to para. 1 of this provision by the Court of Cassation, the Council of State or the Constitutional Court, it would not then be necessary to make a “detour” by the general principle of law. The author also believes that the right to respect for human dignity constitutes a general principle of law of supranational ranking (p. 381).

  22. 22.

    See in particular the developments of Neven, J.-F., Dermine, E. and Palate, S. Les droits à la sécurité sociale et à l’aide sociale, médicale et juridique. In Les droits constitutionnels en Belgique, vol. II, ed. M. Verdussen and N. Bonbled, op. cit., 1355 and following; Born, Ch.-H. and Haumont, F. Le droit à la protection d’un environnement sain. In Les droits constitutionnels en Belgique, vol. II, ed. M. Verdussen and N. Bonbled, op. cit., 1446 and following and the authors quoted. On the subject and notion of significant decline, see also Hachez, I. (2008). Le principe du standstill dans le droit des droits fondamentaux: une irréversibilité relative. Brussels: Bruylant, 694.

  23. 23.

    Neven, J.-F., Dermine, E. and Palate, S. Les droits à la sécurité sociale et à l’aide sociale, médicale et juridique, op. cit., 1327.

  24. 24.

    Ibid., 1382.

  25. 25.

    Article 136 quater, § 1, 5°, Crim. C.: “The other violations, in particular inhumane and degrading treatment”.

  26. 26.

    Clesse, Ch.-E. (2013). La notion de dignité humaine et son application pratique en matière de traite économique des êtres humains. RDPC, 854–877.

  27. 27.

    On slum landlord offences by abusing the position of vulnerable foreigners on account of their illegal or uncertain administrative status, by renting a property or room in conditions that are incompatible with human dignity, see in particular Mons, June 29, 2007, RDPC, 2008, 86, note Ch.-E. Clesse, “Les marchands de sommeil: summum jus, summa injuria”; Corr. Liège, September 02, 2015, JLMB, 2015/37, 1761.

  28. 28.

    Law of March 17, 2013, reforming the disability regimes and introducing a new status of protection in keeping with human dignity; see Recommendation no. R (99) 4 of the Committee of Ministers to the Member States on the principles concerning the legal protection of incapable adults, adopted on February 23, 1999.

  29. 29.

    Fierens, J. (2002). La dignité humaine comme concept juridique, op. cit., 579; Id. (2015) Existe-t-il un principe général du droit du respect de la dignité humaine?, op. cit., 358–382. The author points out that while the domestic courts have not up to now explicitly recognized the respect for human dignity as a general principle of the law, that does not prevent it from existing as such (379).

  30. 30.

    Fierens, J. (2002). La dignité humaine comme concept juridique, op. cit., 579–581; Id. (2015) Existe-t-il un principe général du droit du respect de la dignité humaine?, op. cit., 376; see also on this subject Martens, P. (2000). Encore la dignité humaine: réflexions d’un juge sur la promotion par les juges d’une norme suspecte. In Les droits de l’homme au seuil du troisième millénaire. Mélanges en hommage à Pierre Lambert, 574–575. Brussels: Bruylant.

  31. 31.

    See in particular Mormont, H. (2011). La condition d’octroi de l’aide sociale: le critère de la dignité humaine. In ed. H. Mormont and K. Stangherlin, 51–65. Brussels: La Charte. In a judgement dated March 05, 2008 (JLMB, 2008, note by M. Ellouze, “Vers une notion évolutive de la dignité humaine”), the Mons Labour Court stated that “in a supposedly civilized, and more particularly post-industrial society, the concept of human dignity covers, as well as everything related to satisfying basic needs (access to housing, food, heating, etc.), other needs or aspirations, of a material nature for some, but of an intangible nature for others”. In this case, the Court considered that in regard to his situation, the petitioner had the right to obtain half of the benefit applied for from the CPAS, i.e. payment of half of the costs of subscription to a sports club, for a registration after the pronouncement of the decision; comp. Lab. Court. Nivelles, October 11, 2013 (comments by Trusgnach, Z. 2014. L’octroi de l’aide sociale doit s’apprécier à l’aune de la dignité humaine. Bulletin Juridique & Social, 1), who believed that the community should not be responsible for the cost of the petitioner’s children’s membership of a sports club, as this does not constitute a vital need. With regard to the amount awarded to the detainee by the CPAS for his expenses relating to personal hygiene, access to a telephone, email and the provision of a television, the Liege Labor Court considered that the sum of 50 Euros was sufficient to enable this individual to lead a life in keeping with human dignity in detention conditions (Labour Ct. Liege, July 31, 2013 [comments by Trusgnach, Z. 2014. Bulletin Juridique & Social, 2]).

  32. 32.

    Organic law relating to Public Social Assistance Centres. According to Article 1 of this legislation, “Every individual has the right to social assistance. Its aim is to enable everyone to live a life in keeping with human dignity”.

  33. 33.

    As regards emergency medical assistance, see in particular Cass., October 14, 2013, C.13.0117.F, when the patient is not in a position to assume the cost of emergency care in respect for human dignity; on the refusal by the CPAS to cover the cost of medication intended to treat erectile dysfunction, see Lab. Ct. Liege, June 07, 2011 (comments by Gilson, S. 2011. Bulletin Juridique & Social, 1), which rejected the insured’s claim, considering that although it is important to have sexual relations, the fact of being unable to have them does not mean that the individual’s life is not in keeping with human dignity.

  34. 34.

    See the decisions referred to by Dermine, E. and Palate, S. Les droits à la sécurité sociale et à l’aide sociale, médicale et juridique, op. cit., 1326.

  35. 35.

    In accordance with Article 433 quinquies, § 1, 3° of the Criminal Code: “The following acts constitute the offence of human trafficking: recruiting, transporting, transferring, accommodating or receiving a person, taking or transferring control of said person: […] 3° for the purpose of work or services in conditions contrary to human dignity […]”.

  36. 36.

    Cass., October 08, 2014, RDPC, 2015, 692, note Ch.-E. Clesse, “Le recrutement: une action active ou passive?”.

  37. 37.

    See the decisions referred to by Clesse, Ch.-E. (2013). La notion de dignité humaine et son application pratique en matière de traite économique des êtres humains, op. cit., 870 and following, according to which case law deemed not to be in keeping with human dignity an almost total lack of remuneration, an unconfirmed salary left to the discretion of the employer, pay of 4 or 5 Euros per hour, an undeclared wage below the minimum wage, the fact of working in places in breach of the standards prescribed by the law of August 04, 1996 (concerning the well-being of workers in the performance of their work), of having to stay in a caravan or other unsuitable accommodation, etc.

  38. 38.

    Cass., June 05, 2012, Pas., 2012, 1307.

  39. 39.

    Labor Court of Antwerp, May 06, 2014, Chron. D.S., 2014, 6:302, note T. Arts, S. Fiorelli, V. Loenders, “Een tweede juridische bom onder de voetbalclubs”.

  40. 40.

    See the Royal Decree of July 13, 2004, setting the amount of compensation referred to in Article 5, para. 2 of the law of February 24, 1978, concerning employment contracts for sports professionals, according to which the sportsperson should pay a termination payment much higher than that required from an employee within the context of the termination an employment contract agreed for an indefinite period.

  41. 41.

    See also P. Verviers, September 10, 2012, J.T., 2012, 732, concerning a communal regulation prohibiting the wearing of clothing concealing the face: “The refusal to reveal one’s face to other citizens, similar to refusing to have a surname, is a matter of human dignity. The rule of proportionality must be interpreted as a balance between the freedom to express one’s beliefs, on the one hand, the principle of non-discrimination and equality between citizens, and on the other, the expression of the general concept of human dignity, two other fundamental freedoms”. The Court considered that “communal interference based on the absolute need for security respects the principle of necessity demanded by those standards which are above communal regulations”; on the law of June 01, 2011, prohibiting the wearing of clothing that totally or mostly conceals the face, see Const. Ct., December 06, 2012, J.T., 2013, 234.

  42. 42.

    See in particular Ref. Court of 1st Instance Charleroi, January 19, 2000, TBBR/TGDC, 2000/9, 590 (electricity); J. P. Mouscron-Comines, Warneton, TBBR/RGDC, 2008, 274, note A. Vandeburie, “Coupures d’eau, de gaz et d’électricité: ça suffit! L’article 23 de la Constitution à la rescousse des besoins énergétiques fondamentaux”. According to this decision, the application for authorization to cut off the water supply in case of unpaid bills cannot be granted, and the distributor would have to develop a system making it possible to reduce the water supply to the absolute minimum required to conform to the basic needs related to human dignity; see also J. P. Fontaine-l’Evêque, October 15, 2009, J.J.P., 2012, 306, note J. Fierens, “Vers un droit à l’eau effectif?” which declares the application for the water supply to be completely cut off to be unfounded and also refers to Article 23, para. 1 of the Constitution, stating that human dignity is inconceivable without a minimal supply of drinking and non-drinking water. Civ. Charleroi, February 22, 2013, JLMB, 2014/5, 231, which does not consider that Article 23 of the Constitution would have a direct effect.

  43. 43.

    Any natural person who is not a trader may, if he is unable to pay his debts, payable now or in the future, submit an application to the judge for a collective settlement of debts, provided he has not deliberately arranged his insolvency (Article 1675/2, C. Jud.). A settlement plan is then drawn up for the purpose of re-establishing the debtor’s financial situation “enabling him in particular, as far as is possible, to pay his debts and at the same time guaranteeing him and his family the possibility of living a life in keeping with human dignity” (Article 1675/3 C., Jud.). See Labor Court of Liège, January 12, 2010, JLMB, 2010/11, 504. In this case, it was a matter of the dignity of a person freely and voluntarily deciding to be a prostitute. In addition, in a judgement date November 18, 2013 (R.C.J.B., 2015, 355, aforementioned note of J. Fierens), the Court of Cassation considered that neither Article 110 of the Constitution (granting the King the right to increase or reduce the sentences imposed by the courts) nor the general principle of law concerning the separation of powers prohibit the collective settlement judge from granting the person being mediated, within the terms set by the law, a write-off of debts resulting from sentences to fines when this measure is necessary to enable the interested party and his family to live a life in keeping with human dignity. However, the legislature has not followed up this idea: see Article 464/1, § 8, para. 5 CIC, inserted by the law of February 11, 2014, concerning various measures intended to improve the recovery of fines and legal costs in criminal cases (I).

  44. 44.

    See Const. Ct., December 06, 2012 (J.T., 2013, 234), which considered “that the right to lead a life in keeping with human dignity involves being able to have a livelihood, which may include begging in the absence of a better practical and effective solution; that this right does not, however, mean begging without any restriction being imposed on this practice by the administrative authority […]”.

  45. 45.

    J. P. Grâce-Hollogne, May 30, 2002, JLMB, 2002/41, 1815: “The time to find decent housing in accordance with the objective of Article 23 of the Constitution”.

  46. 46.

    Corr. Liège, September 02, 2015, op. cit., 1761, concerning slum landlord offences (Article 433 decies of the Criminal Code): “The aim of the law is to protect the general principle of human dignity which, not being confined to combating substandard housing, is autonomous with regard to regional housing legislation. […] The ‘undignified’ nature of an accommodation is determined, in particular, by the absence, insufficiency or the manifestly dangerous condition of electrical or sanitary equipment or by the small size of the premises compared to the number of renters accommodated”.

  47. 47.

    Const. Ct., September 26, 2013, no. 122/2013 (preliminary ruling).

  48. 48.

    Const. Ct., October 04, 2012, no. 114/12, concerning a preliminary ruling relating to Article 4 of the law of February 27, 1987, concerning grants to the disabled; on this subject, see in particular Trusgnach, Z. 2014. L’aide sociale aux étrangers: rappel des principes (1re partie). Bulletin Juridique & Social, 2.

  49. 49.

    Const. Ct., December 09, 2010, no. 135 10.

  50. 50.

    Const. Ct., December 19, 2013, no. 166 2013: “Detaining minors in a suitable place does not constitute inhumane or degrading treatment. Detaining minors pending their deportation does not violate their right to lead a life in keeping with human dignity”. On migrant rights, see in particular Saroléa, S. 2006. Droits de l’homme et migrations. De la protection du migrant aux droits de la personne migrante. Brussels: Bruylant.

  51. 51.

    Article 5 of the law of August 22, 2002.

  52. 52.

    Article 21 of the Medical Ethics Code.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., Article 75.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., Article 17.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., Article 94.

  56. 56.

    This refers to the “doctor responsible for assessing the physical or mental capacity or qualification of a person, or for carrying out any physical examination, checking a diagnosis, monitoring a treatment or making enquiries about medical services on behalf of an insurance body”.

  57. 57.

    Article 125, § 1 of the Medical Ethics Code.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., Article 9.

  59. 59.

    See Arb. Ct., October 24, 1990, no. 32 90.

  60. 60.

    Arb. Ct., December 19, 1991, no. 39/9, J.T., 1992, 362, note J. Coenraets, “De nouvelles frontières aux compétences de la Cour d’arbitrage. Quelques conséquences de l’arrêt n° 39/91 du 19 décembre 1991”.

  61. 61.

    See Article 5 of the law of May 11, 2003, introducing a ban on implanting human embryos in animals, creating chimeras or hybrids, implanting embryos subject to research on humans (unless authorized by law), the use of embryos, gametes and embryonic stem cells for commercial purposes, conducting eugenic research, research on gender selection unless it is based on avoiding embryos with gender-based diseases.

  62. 62.

    Articles 3 to 7 of the law of May 11, 2003. Research may be carried out on an embryo during the first fourteen days of development, not including the freezing period, and it must have a therapeutic goal or be related to advancing knowledge with regard to fertility, sterility, organ or tissue transplants, or the prevention or treatment of diseases. There can be no alternative method of research of comparable effectiveness.

  63. 63.

    Opinion no. 10 of June 14, 1999, of the Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics concerning reproductive human cloning, 35.

  64. 64.

    Ibid., 21, 26 and 27; see also in particular Opinion no. 24 of October 13, 2003, of the Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics concerning human stem cells and therapeutic cloning.

  65. 65.

    The law of July 06, 2007, on activities related to assisted reproductive technologies and the use of surplus embryos and gametes.

  66. 66.

    It can use a conscience clause to refuse to accept an application, even when the legal requirements have been satisfied.

  67. 67.

    Article 67 of the law of July 06, 2007. It is, however, prohibited to carry out a eugenic PGD (based on the selection or amplification of non-pathological genetic characteristics of the human species, within the meaning of Articles 5, 4°, of the law of May 11, 2003, concerning research on embryos in vitro) or to base it on gender selection, unless this is intended to avoid embryos with gender-related diseases; see also Article 5, 5°, of the law of May 11, 2003.

  68. 68.

    Article 68 of the law of July 06, 2007.

  69. 69.

    Either their cryopreservation for a pregnancy, their destruction, their inclusion in a research protocol or their allocation for donation (Articles 10, 13, 20, 30, 37, 40, 42, 49 and 59 of the law of July 06, 2007).

  70. 70.

    It is regrettable that the legislature did not adopt a specific system to establish parentage when the child is the result of an assisted reproductive technology; see Schamps, G. (2014). Les incidences de la biomédecine sur la parenté: le hiatus entre les actes liés à la procréation médicalement assistée et l’établissement de la filiation en droit belge. In Les incidences de la biomédecine sur la parenté. Approche international, ed. M.-C. Crespo-Brauner and B. Feuillet-Liger, 55–82. Brussels: Bruylant: see the law of May 05, 2014, on establishing parentage in shared parenting cases, which in particular establishes the presumption of joint motherhood for the female spouse of the woman who gives birth (Article 325/2 of the Civil Code civil); Beernaert, J.-E. and Massager, N. (2015). La loi du 5 mai 2014 instaurant le régime de la co-maternité: Trois femmes, un homme et un couffin. Act. dr. fam., 4:74–84.

  71. 71.

    See above.

  72. 72.

    Opinion no. 57 of December 16, 2013, concerning the ethical aspects of freezing eggs in anticipation of age-related infertility, p. 32–34.

  73. 73.

    Opinion no. 43 of December 10, 2007, concerning the problem of the commercialization of human body parts, p. 43 and 44.

  74. 74.

    Concerning the removal of organs from incapable persons, see in particular Opinion no. 50 of May 09, 2011, concerning certain ethical aspects of modifications introduced by the law of February 25, 2007, to the law of June 13, 1986, relating to the removal and transplantation of organs; Opinion no. 60 of January 27, 2014, relating to the ethical aspects of liver transplants for patients suffering from acute alcoholic hepatitis (AAH) and who are not responding to traditional medical treatments.

  75. 75.

    For a critique of this conception and the arguments put forward, see Dijon, X. 2006. Vers un commerce du corps humain, op. cit., 501–504.

  76. 76.

    See the contributions in the work Schamps, G. and Sosson, J. (ed.). 2013. La gestation pour autrui: vers un encadrement? Brussels: Bruylant.

  77. 77.

    See in particular Gallus, N. La validité de la convention de gestation pour autrui en droit belge actuel. In La gestation pour autrui: vers un encadrement?, op. cit., 182; for a different view, see Genicot, G. Gestation pour autrui, autonomie personnelle et maîtrise corporelle. Plaidoyer pour un droit neutre et libéré. In La gestation pour autrui: vers un encadrement?, op. cit., 156.

  78. 78.

    Leleu, Y.-L. (2010). Droit des personnes et des familles, op. cit., 143 and 144. According to G. Genicot, there should be no chance of profit for the surrogate mother, although a reasonable compensation payment should be allowed, as well as a remuneration of her expenses by the social security department or the intended parents (Gestation pour autrui, autonomie personnelle et maîtrise corporelle. Plaidoyer pour un droit neutre et libéré, op. cit., 178).

  79. 79.

    Opinion no. 30 of July 05, 2004, on surrogacy. The Committee emphasizes in particular that this practice should be limited to strict medical conditions: lack of a uterus, a clear counter-indication to pregnancy and uterine infertility (Opinion of July 05, 2004, on surrogacy, p. 4, 23, 24, 34 and 35).

  80. 80.

    For an analysis of the decision to use an agreement and of the “free-of-charge” nature of surrogacy in relation to the draft laws put forward and to comparative law, see Schamps, G. and Willems, G. 2013. La convention de gestation pour autrui entre autonomie, ordre public et droits fondamentaux: quelles garanties formelles et substantielles?, op. cit., 325–374.

  81. 81.

    Opinion no. 30 of July 05, 2004, on surrogacy, p. 30.

  82. 82.

    Ibid., p. 32.

  83. 83.

    Some draft laws use the wording of previous proposals; see in particular the Draft law of September 10, 2014, adding to the Criminal Code provisions relating to the commercialization of the surrogacy arrangement and mediation for that purpose, Doc. parl., Ch. repr., session 2014, no. 54-0242; Draft law of October 07, 2014, modifying the Criminal Code with regard to surrogacy for financial gain, Doc. parl., Ch. repr., session 2014, no. 54-0423; Draft law of October 07, 2014, on the organization of surrogacy clinics, Doc. parl., Ch. repr., session 2014, no. 54-0425. For a comparative analysis of previous draft laws, see the contributions to La gestation pour autrui: vers un encadrement?, op. cit., 287–450.

  84. 84.

    Schamps, G. and Willems, G. (2013). La convention de gestation pour autrui entre autonomie, ordre public et droits fondamentaux: quelles garanties formelles et substantielles?, op. cit., 342–343.

  85. 85.

    Articles 27 and 56 of the law of July 06, 2007.

  86. 86.

    Ghent, April 30, 2012, R.G.D.C., 2012, 372; Civ. Huy, March 22, 2010, Rev. trim. dr. fam., 2010, 4:1125, note C. Henricot, S. Saroléa and J. Sosson, “La filiation d’enfants nés d’une gestation pour autrui à l’étranger”.

  87. 87.

    Ghent, December 04, 2013, unpublished (case Baby Donna), which applied Article 417bis, § 3, of the Criminal Code.

  88. 88.

    Corr. Liège, September 27, 2011, JLMB, 2012/37, 1766.

  89. 89.

    On this subject, see in particular Delbeke, E. (2012). Juridische aspecten van zorgverlening aan het levenseinde. Antwerp: Intersentia; Schamps, G. 2013. La fin de vie – soins palliatifs et euthanasie – en droit belge. Situation actuelle et perspectives. RGDM, 123–150 and the authors quoted.

  90. 90.

    Article 3, § 2, 1 of the law of May 28, 2002, on euthanasia.

  91. 91.

    General discussion, draft law on euthanasia of July 09, 2001, Report on behalf of the Joint Commissions for Justice and Social Affairs by Ms. Laloy and Ms. Van Riet, Doc. parl. Senate, session 2000–2001, no. 2-244/22, p. 194.

  92. 92.

    See L. Cassiers, Auditions, Proposition de loi relative à l’euthanasie of July 09, 2001, Report no. 2-244/22, p. 24: “Thus for some, it is only the person suffering who can decide on his passing, while for others, human dignity is something that is conferred by others”; see General discussion: Report on behalf of the Joint Commissions for Justice by M. T. Giet, Mrs A. Van de Casteele, A. Barzin and J. Schauvliege, April 23, 2002, Doc. parl., Ch. repr., session 2001–2002, no. 50-1488/09, p. 16 and following; see also Opinion no. 59 of January 27, 2014, of the Advisory Committee on Bioethics concerning the ethical aspects of the application of the law of May 28, 2002, on euthanasia.

  93. 93.

    See in particular General discussion, Draft law modifying the law of May 28, 2002 on euthanasia, with a view to extending it to minors, Draft law adding to, with regard to minors, the law of May 28, 2002 on euthanasia, Draft law modifying, with regard to minors, the law of May 28, 2002 on euthanasia, 7 February 2014, Report on behalf of the Commission for Justice by Mrs S. Smeyers, Doc. parl., Ch. repr., session 2013–2014, no. 53-3245/004, p. 46–47 (referred to below Report no. 53-3245/004); General discussion, Draft law modifying the law of May 28, 2002 on euthanasia with a view to extending it to minors, December 04, 2013, Report on behalf of the Joint Commissions for Justice and Social Affairs by Mme Khattabi and Van Hoof, Doc. parl., Sén., session 2013–2014, no. 5-2170/4, p. 17 and 18 (referred to below Report no. 5-2170/4).

  94. 94.

    For a critical appraisal of the way in which the parliamentary debates were carried out, see Delpérée, F. (2015). Le juriste face à l’euthanasie de l’enfant en fin de vie. In Contestation, combats et utopies. Liber Amicorum Christine Matray, ed. J. Buyle, M. Castin, P. Henry, F. Jongen, P. Martens, D. Matray and F. Ringelheim, 134 and following. Brussels: Larcier.

  95. 95.

    Law of February 28, 2014 modifying the law of May 28, 2002, on euthanasia to extend euthanasia to minors; Delbeke, E. 2014–2015. Euthanasie bij minderjarigen. Tijd. v. Gez. / Rev. dr. santé, 163–171.

  96. 96.

    Article 3, § 1 of the Law of May 28, 2002, on euthanasia.

  97. 97.

    A. du Bus de Warnaffe, General discussion, Report no. 5-2170/4, op. cit., p. 17 and 18: “A minor is a relational being. All his dignity is manifested in the exchanges, relationships and attitudes of the medical staff, careers and family. This relationship cannot endure a message communicating the idea that euthanasia for minors would be a solution enabling them to lift a difficult burden from the shoulders of their nearest and dearest”.

  98. 98.

    Ph. Mahoux, Report no. 5-2170/4, op. cit., p. 73; see also in particular Ph. Goffin, General discussion, Report no. 53-3245/004, op. cit., p. 47: “The sole objective of this project is to shorten the ordeal of a child experiencing unbearable suffering and to pre-empt their death by just a few hours or days at most; in short, to allow it the opportunity of a dignified and gentle death. What right do we have to decide what is a good or bad death for someone else? On the contrary, the speaker believes that this is a matter of individual freedom”.

  99. 99.

    Ch. Defraigne, Report no. 5-2170/4, op. cit., p. 35: “The law of 2002 gave terminally ill patients the ability to decide their own approach to being a human being at the end of one’s life. The law also protects the patient from abuse. The law provides for an open exchange between the patient and the doctor, without concealing anything. The patient knows that his request for euthanasia will be considered and can, at the same time, have recourse to palliative care. In this way, the patient is relieved of the fear of suffering and loss of dignity. The law of 2002 made it possible to provide legal security to the doctor who performs a humane act by relieving an end-of-life patient from unbearable suffering”.

  100. 100.

    See in particular Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia, Fifth report to the Legislative Chambers (2010–2011), Doc. Parl., Ch. repr., session 2011–2012, no. 53-2391/001 (Chamber) and 5-1718/1 (Senate), p. 9; Sixth report to the Legislative Chambers (2012–2013), August 19, 2014, Doc. Parl., extr. session 2014, no. 54-0135/001 (Chamber) and 6-13/1 (Senate), p. 17.

  101. 101.

    Const. Ct., October 29, 2015, no. 153/2015, JLMB, 2015, p. 1932, note G. Genicot, “Rejet du recours en annulation de la loi étendant l’euthanasie aux mineurs: validation d’une évolution logique et prudente”.

  102. 102.

    Recital B.16, citing the ECHR judgements January 20, 2011, Haas v. Switzerland, § 51; ECHR, July 19, 2012, Koch v. Germany, § 52; ECHR, May 14, 2013, Gross v. Switzerland, § 59.

  103. 103.

    The Constitutional Court also refers to the ECHR judgements April 29, 2002, Pretty v. United Kingdom, § 67; ECHR, January 20, 2011, Haas v. Switzerland, § 50.

  104. 104.

    This provision states: “Each individual has the right to respect for his privacy and family life, except in those cases and conditions stipulated by the law. The laws, decrees or rules referred to in Article 134 guarantee the protection of this right”.

  105. 105.

    Recitals B.17.1 and B.17.2.

  106. 106.

    The Court refers to the ECHR judgement of January 20, 2011, Haas v. Switzerland, § 54.

  107. 107.

    The Court cites the ECHR judgements, Grand Chamber, May 10, 2001, Z. e.a. v. United Kingdom, § 73; ECHR, December 04, 2003, M.C. v. Bulgaria, § 149 as well as Article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 22bis of the Constitution.

  108. 108.

    See in particular Article 3, § 1 of the law of May 28, 2002, on euthanasia referred to above.

  109. 109.

    Recital B.21.4.

  110. 110.

    Among the legal conditions stipulated, a doctor practicing euthanasia must consult a child psychiatrist or psychologist, specifying the reasons for this consultation. The specialist must familiarize himself with the medical file, examine the patient, ensure that the minor has the capacity for discernment and confirm this in writing (Articles 3, § 2, 7° of the Law of May 28, 2002, on euthanasia).

  111. 111.

    Recital B.26.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Medical and Biomedical Law, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Geneviève Schamps

Authors
  1. Geneviève Schamps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geneviève Schamps .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Rennes, Rennes, France

    Brigitte Feuillet-Liger

  2. Columbia University, New York, USA

    Kristina Orfali

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schamps, G. (2018). The Concept of Human Dignity in Belgian Law: A Variety of Approaches. In: Feuillet-Liger, B., Orfali, K. (eds) The Reality of Human Dignity in Law and Bioethics. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 71. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99112-2_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99112-2_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-99111-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-99112-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation