Abstract
In October 2003, the Parliament of the Autonomous Community of Andalusia passed a law authorising the use of human embryos that were biologically viable in biomedical research. At that time, the use of such embryos was banned for other researchers in Spain. The national government lodged an appeal of unconstitutionality, claiming, among other things, State competence in the definition of the legal status of the human embryo. For its part, the government of Andalusia alleged that the law had been created under the protection of its competences in the matter of scientific and technical research. The Socialist Party victory in the 2004 national elections led, however, to the appeal being withdrawn and deprived us of knowing the ruling of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter CC) vis-à-vis a growing phenomenon: the fragmentation of multilevel governance, linked to scientific-technological progress and the knowledge-based economy, is favouring the protection of the right to life. The present research seeks to address this phenomenon.
The present research work is framed within the Project: The Federal System: between integration of diversity and stability, financed by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (DER 2010-20850) and within the work of the Consolidated Research Group: Legal mechanisms for the integration of difference (Basque Government, IT509-10).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The 7/2003 Law, which regulates research in Andalusia with “inviable” human embryos for in vitro fertilisation: BOE (Official State Gazette) no. 279/2003, 21st November, 2003. Among “inviable” embryos, the Law includes those that are biologically viable but have exceeded the time period during which the law allows their cryopreservation.
- 2.
For more details, see Escajedo San-Epifanio (2005), pp. 345–366.
- 3.
See, for all, the Spanish Constitutional Court Ruling, 53/1985, and references to Comparative Law in González Moran (2006), p. 53 onwards.
- 4.
Böckenförde (2003), pp. 810–813.
- 5.
- 6.
Alexy (1994), p. 322.
- 7.
Eser (2002), p. 139.
- 8.
Volkmann (2008) pp. 188–189. See also BVerfGE 7, 198 (Ruling of the German Constitutional Court in the Lüth case, 1958) and the CC Ruling of March, 1981.
- 9.
Escajedo San-Epifanio (2012).
- 10.
G. Cámara Villar refers to a “setting”, in Balaguer et al. (2011), p. 47. See CC Ruling of 31st March 1981.
- 11.
Ruiz Rico (1997), p. 1759.
- 12.
Hesse, p. 91.
- 13.
Hesse, ult loc cit, points to von Ihering and his reflection on the aims of Law as determinants in the initiation of theoretical reflection on said element.
- 14.
De Cabo Martin, p. 245.
- 15.
Article XVI.
- 16.
In Title I of the 1978 Spanish Constitution, Article 15 opens the section that bears the heading: De los derechos fundamentales y de las libertades públicas with the following statement: “Everyone has the right to life and physical and moral integrity and cannot, under any circumstance, be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading penalties or treatment. The death penalty is hereby abolished except that which may be stipulated in criminal military laws in times of war”.
- 17.
The French Constitution of 1848 similarly included a rejection of the death penalty (Article 5) as, for its part, did the Tenth Declaration of the English Bill of Rights or the 8th Amendment of the 1787 American Constitution, introduced in 1791.
- 18.
Italian Constitution of 1947 (Articles 13.4 and sections 3 and 4 of Article 27), Article 2.2 of the Fundamental Law of Bonn (together with Articles 102 and 104.1), and years later, the Greek Constitution (Sections 2 and 3 of Article 7) and that of Portugal (25 and 26).
- 19.
Constitutional Court Ruling 120/1990 of 27th June, Legal Foundation (henceforth LF) 7, and CC Ruling 5/2002, of 14th January, in its LF, 4.
- 20.
See, especially, ECHR Ruling of 7th July, 1989, in the Soering case, § 88 and in ECHR Ruling of 11th July, 2000, Jabari v. Turkey case, § 39.
- 21.
See II.3 and II.4.
- 22.
For all, see Romeo Casabona (1991), pp. 42–44.
- 23.
See also CC Ruling 5/2002, of 14th January, in its LF, 4.
- 24.
CC Ruling 119/2001, of 14th May, in its 6th LF.
- 25.
See, IV.
- 26.
One small remark before continuing: In coherence with the heading of this section (the legal position of the holder who wishes to put an end to life), the cases of “charitable homicide” have not here been considered in which there is no specific request by the person. At present, these situations are punished by the Criminal Code, even in those cases in which the demonstration of the charitable component may be commuted to a lesser sentence than that of generic homicide.
- 27.
- 28.
We coincide in this with González Moran (2006), pp. 348–350, cit.
- 29.
CC Ruling 120/1990, of 20th June 20, which ruled on the appeal for protection lodged by various prisoners belonging to the terrorist group, Grapo, against a Ruling by the Provincial Court of Madrid, which ordered their force-feeding. See also ECHR, case 2342/02, in the Ruling on Pretty versus UK, especially paragraphs 8 and 9.
- 30.
Rodotá (1999), p. 43.
- 31.
See also Ruling of the ECHR in the case of Pretty versus UK, of 29th April, 2002; see Canosa Usera (2006), p. 101.
- 32.
See González Moran (2006), p. 578, cit.
- 33.
Law 3/2001, of 28th May, of the Autonomous Community of Galicia, regulator of informed consent and of the medical records of the patients; Law 6/2002, of 15th April, on Health in Aragon or Law 7/2002, of 12th December, of the Basque Country, of anticipated wills in the field of health; Law 6/2005, of 7th July, of Castilla La-Mancha, regarding the Declaration of Anticipated Wills with respect to health; Law 1/2006, of 3rd March, of the Balearic Islands, of anticipated wills or Law 2/2010, of 8th April, of Andalusia, Rights and Safeguards of the Dignity of the Person in the Process of Death.
- 34.
De Montalvo Jääskeläinen (2009).
- 35.
Extracts from the 5th and 7th Legal Foundation of Ruling 120/1990.
- 36.
ECHR Ruling, 2007/20, 20th of May.
- 37.
Decree 3096/1973, by which the revised text of the Penal Code is published.
- 38.
The 9/1985 Organic Law introduced Article 417bis into the Penal Code of 1973, decriminalising abortion in certain situations.
- 39.
Organic Law 2/2010, of 3rd March, on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy (BOE, number 55, of 4th March, 2010).
- 40.
Council of State Report regarding the Bill for the Organic Law on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Voluntary Termination of Pregnancy, 2009.
- 41.
Ferreres Cornella (2011), p. 19 onwards.
- 42.
Paragraphs 106 and 107 of the ECHR Ruling 2007/20.
- 43.
Articles 14 and 15 of the OL 2/2010.
- 44.
Roca Trias (1994), p. 121 onwards.
- 45.
CC Ruling 212/1998, of 19th December, regarding Law 42/1988 and the CC Ruling STC 116/1999 of 17th June, regarding Law 35/1988.
- 46.
Escajedo (2005), p. 345 onwards, cit.
- 47.
- 48.
Against this, Böckenförde considers it artificial to distinguish between person and human being, given that in the recognition of dignity, the German Constitution refers to human being (Mensch), in Böckenförde (2003), pp. 810–813, cit.
- 49.
Volkmann (2008), pp. 188–189.
- 50.
Böckenförde (1992), p. 159 onwards.
- 51.
See, note 6.
- 52.
Cruz Villalón (2006), pp. 25–26.
- 53.
Law 45/2003, already cited; Law 14/2006, on Assisted Human Reproductive Techniques, of 26th May; and Law 14/2007, on Biomedical Research.
- 54.
Law 7/2003, of 20th October, cit. supra and Law 1/2007, of 16th March, regulating research into cell reprogramming for exclusively therapeutic purposes. BOE of 13th April, 2007.
- 55.
Andalusian Law 1/2007 includes the transfer of the nucleus of a somatic cell to the cytoplasm of a previously nucleated ovocyte as a nuclear reprogramming technique (Article 2.e). Law 14/2007, for its part, in Article 33, indicates that “the use of any technique for obtaining human stem cells for therapeutic or research purposes which does not involve the creation of an in vitro embryo or of an embryo exclusively for this purpose is permitted, in the terms defined by this law, including the activation of ovocytes via nuclear transfer”.
- 56.
Cloning via nuclear transfer.
- 57.
Article 33 of Law 14/2007 reads thus: “The use of any technique is permitted to obtain human stem cells for therapeutic or research purposes, but which does not involve the creation of a pre-embryo or of an embryo exclusively for this purpose, in the terms defined by this law, including the activation of ovocytes by means of nuclear transfer”.
- 58.
Its full title is: “Protection of the Human Rights and Dignity of the Person with Regard to the Applications of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine”, in force in Spain since 1st January, 2000. See Escajedo San-Epifanio (2010), pp. 161–189.
- 59.
See Escajedo San-Epifanio (2010), pp. 161–189, cit.
- 60.
Bastida (2011), pp. 29–30, cit.
- 61.
Palacios (2008).
- 62.
Article 25 of Organic Law 1/2007, 28th February, of reform of the Statute of Autonomy of the Balearic Islands; Article 20 of Organic Law 2/2007, 19th March, of reform of the Statute of Autonomy of Andalusia; and Article 14 of Organic Law 5/2007, 20th April of reform of the Statute of Autonomy of Aragon.
- 63.
Rodríguez (2011), pp. 73–74, cit.
- 64.
See CC Ruling 247/2007, 5th LF, and subsequent ones and CC Ruling 2010, 16th LF and following ones. Likewise, Rodríguez, loc cit, pp. 73–73.
- 65.
- 66.
See also CC Ruling 5/2002, of 14th January, in its 4th LF. See: II.1.
- 67.
As has been seen in II.2.
- 68.
Carrillo López (p. 162 onwards) on p. 156.
- 69.
The recent Andalusian Law 2/2010, regarding the rights and safeguards of the dignity of the person when dying, approved in Plenary Session of the Parliament on 17th and 18th March, 2010, would also enter into this refection.
- 70.
For all, with further references, see Fleiner (2009), p. 511 onwards.
- 71.
Rubio Llorente (2009), p. 19.
- 72.
Mateucci (1963), p. 1039, 1041.
- 73.
Lucas Verdú (1976), pp. 45–46.
- 74.
López Pina (2001) p. XXIII.
- 75.
Dahl (2001), p. 17.
- 76.
Hesse, p. 9, cit.
- 77.
- 78.
- 79.
For further detail, see note 6.
- 80.
This happens, states Jiménez Campo, when the outlines of a law are not clear: in Jiménez Campo (1999), p. 36.
- 81.
Article 149.1.1 of the Spanish Constitution. An approach to its content and application can be found in the Catalan journal of public law.
- 82.
Christian Byk (2008), pp. 175–176.
- 83.
Schlink (1984), p. 457 onwards, cited by Ignacio Gutiérrez, in “Teoría y Realidad”, p. 200, number 11.
- 84.
Cormick (1996), pp. 25–31.
References
B. Ackermann, La Constitución viviente, 2011.
M. Agudo Zamora, “Derechos Sociales. Deberes y Políticas Públicas”, in S. Muñoz/M Rebollo (eds), Comentarios al Estatuto de Autonomía para Andalucía, Civitas, Madrid, 2008, page 301.
R. Alexy, Teoría de los Derechos fundamentales, 2nd edition, Frankfurt, 1994.
F. Balaguer/G. Cámara Villar/et altere, Manual de Derecho Constitucional, 2011.
F. J. Bastida Freijedo “El derecho fundamental a la vida y la autonomía del paciente”, M. A. Presno (coord.), Autonomía Personal, Cuidados Paliativos y Derecho a la Vida, Procuradora General del Principado de Asturias, University of Oviedo, 2011, page 21.
E. W. Böckenförde, Staat, Verfassung, Demokratie, 2nd edition, Frankfurt a. M., 1992.
E.-W. Böckenförde, “Menschenwürde als normatives Prinzip. Die Grundrechte in der bioethischen Debatte”, Juristen Zeitung, 2003, pages 810–813.
G. Calabresi/P. Bobbitt, Tragic Choices, Norton & Company, 1978.
R. Canosa Usera, El derecho a la integridad personal, Lex Nova, Valladolid, 2006.
M. Carrillo López “Derechos y Garantías Jurisdiccionales”, Monográfico de la Rev Catalana de Dret Public, special edition, regarding the Ruling on the Statute (pages 162 onwards) on page 156.
C. BYK, in: The Nexus of Law and Biology. New Ethical Challenges, Ashgate, 2008.
R. Chueca, “Los derechos fundamentales a la vida y a la integridad física: el poder de disposición sobre el final de la propia vida”, in Derecho y Salud, Vol. 16, 2008.
R. Chueca/J. Coleman/W. L. Holahan, “El marco constitucional del final de la propia vida”, REDC, n°85/2009, pages 99–123.
J. Coleman and W. L. Holahan, in the Californian Law Review (67), 6 (1979), page 1379.
M. Cormick, “La Sentencia de Maastricht: soberanía ahora”, in Debats 55, 1996, pages 25–31.
P. Cruz Villalón, “Perspectivas Constitucionales ante los Avances de la Genética”, AFDUAM, special edition 2006, Derecho y Genética, pages 25–26.
R. A. Dahl, How Democratic is the American Constitution, Yale University Press, 2001, page 17.
C. de Cabo Martin, Teoría Histórica del Estado y del derecho Constitucional, Vol. II, Estado y Derecho en la transición al capitalismo y en su evolución: el desarrollo constitucional.
F. de Montalvo Jääskeläinen, Muerte Digna y Constitución: Límites del Testamento Vital, Pontifical University of Comillas, 2009, passim.
L. Escajedo San-Epifanio, “Acerca de la investigación con preembriones y la incidencia autonómica en la determinación del contenido esencial de los derechos fundamentales”, in Estado autonómico: integración, solidaridad, diversidad, Colex-Goberna, 2005, Volume II, pages 345 to 366.
L. Escajedo San-Epifanio, “Constitucionalismo transnacional y nuevos derechos. Sobre la validez del Corpus Iuris de los Derechos Humanos y la Biomedicina, como paradigma”, in I. Filibi/J. M. Belise (cordinators), Constitucionalismo transnacional. Derecho, democracia y economía política en la Globalización, University of Cordoba (Argentina), 2010, pages 161–189.
L. Escajedo San-Epifanio, “El inconsistente estatuto del embrión humano extracorpóreo en la Unión Europea. Proyecciones constitucionales de la Sentencia TJUE Brüstle v. Greenpeace (as. C-34/10)”, ReDCE, 2012, in press.
A. Eser, “Auf der Suche nach dem mittleren Weg: Zwischen Fundamentalismus und Beliebigkeit?” in Langer, M./Laschet, A. (eds), Unterwegs mit Visionen, Festschrift für R-Süssmuth, Freiburg, 2002, page 139.
J. Femenía López, Status jurídico del embrión humano, con especial consideración al concebido “in vitro”, Madrid, 1999.
V. Ferreres Cornella, “El Tribunal Constitucional ante la objeción de conciencia”, in AAVV, Jurisdicción constitucional y democracia, CEPC, 2011.
Th. Fleiner, “The Multicultural State: the Challenge of the Future”, in AA. VV., Constitutional Democracy in a Multicultural Globalised World, 2009.
J. Gabaldón López “Libre desarrollo de la personalidad y derecho a la vida.”, Persona y Derecho, n° 44, 2001, p 134, 155–156.
M. A. Garcia Herrera, voz Biopolítica, Enciclopedia de Bioderecho y Bioética, Comares, 2011.
M. A. Garcia Herrera, “Derechos nuevos y nuevos derechos en la Unión Europea”, Teoría del Diritto e dello stato, 2005/1, pages 27–55.
L. GONZÁLEZ MORAN, De la Bioética al Bioderecho. Libertad, Vida y Muerte, Dykinson, 2006, pages 53.
C. Hesse, “Significado de los Derechos Fundamentales”, Benda/Maihoffer, Vogel, Hesse, Heyde, Manual de Derecho Constitucional, 2nd Ed. Marcial Pons, page 91.
J. Isensee, Wann beginnt das Recht auf Leben? Akademie Journal 2002.
J. Jiménez Campo: in Derechos fundamentales y Garantías, Trotta, Madrid, 1999.
A. López Pina, “La Dogmática Alemana, punto de partida de una Teoría del Derecho Público”, in Benda/et altere, Manual, 2001, page XXIII.
P. Lucas Verdú, Curso de Derecho Político, T.I., Técnos, Madrid, 1976.
N. Mateucci, “Positivismo giuridico e costituzionalismo”, in Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile, 1963, page 1039 and page 1041.
L. Ortega, “Eficacia y garantía de los derechos”, in F. Balaguer (ed), Reformas Estatutarias y Declaraciones de Derechos, IAAP, Seville, 2008, page 113.
M. Palacios, “Soy mi dignidad. Consideraciones y propuestas sobre la muerte digna”, Revista de Jurisprudencia de Buenos Aires, 2008.
E. Roca Trias, “El Derecho perplejo: los misterios de los embriones”. Rev. Der. G H 1/1994, pages 121.
S. Rodotá, in VVAA, Libertad y Salud, Cuadernos de la Fundación Grifols, no.1/1999, page 43.
A. Rodríguez, “Muerte digna y derechos en los Estatutos de Autonomía”, in M. Presno (coord.), 2011, pages. 73–74.
C. Romeo Casabona, El Derecho y la Bioética ante los límites de la vida humana, 1991, pages 42–44.
C. M. Romeo Casabona, “El derecho a la vida: aspectos constitucionales de las nuevas biotecnologías”, 2003, page 30, 40–42.
F. Rubio Llorente, “Rigidez y Apertura en la Constitución”, in AAVV, La Reforma Constitucional, 2009, page 19.
J. J. Ruiz Rico, “Problemas de objetividad y neutralidad en el estudio contemporáneo de la política”, Estudios de Derecho Público en Homenaje a J. J. Ruiz Rico, Tecnos, Madrid, 1997, page 1759.
B. Schlink, “Rekonstruktion der klassischen Grundrechtsfunktion”, Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift, 1984, page 457.
U. Volkmann, “El Derecho Constitucional, entre pretensión normativa y realidad política”, Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, 21/2008, pages 188–189.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Epifanio, L.E.S. (2013). “Fragmentation” of the Fundamental Right to Life: Between Territorial Decentralization and the Knowledge-Based Economy. In: López - Basaguren, A., Escajedo San Epifanio, L. (eds) The Ways of Federalism in Western Countries and the Horizons of Territorial Autonomy in Spain. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27717-7_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27717-7_30
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-27716-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-27717-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)