Elberte v. Latvia: Whose tissue is it anyway – Relational autonomy or the autonomy of relations?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

A European Court of Human Rights decision rendered in January 2015 (Elberte v. Latvia) has raised a curious question regarding the nature and scope of the right for relatives to consent to or to oppose the removal of a deceased person’s tissues. The decision suggests that Council of Europe member states must clearly define the scope of the right for relatives to express their preferences for removal of a deceased’s tissue or organs – provided such a right has been created in law – and member states must define the corresponding obligation or margin of discretion conferred on experts or other authorities to explain these rights to the relatives. Notwithstanding, this article asks whether the decision could open the door to a free-standing right for relatives to oppose removal of their deceased relative’s tissues or organs, regardless of the deceased person’s own wishes, in the name of the relatives’ human ‘right to respect for private life’.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)77-96
JournalMedical Law International
Volume15
Issue number2-3
Early online date1 Dec 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 25 Feb 2016

Keywords

  • consent
  • donation
  • human rights
  • organ and tissue control
  • private life

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Elberte v. Latvia: Whose tissue is it anyway – Relational autonomy or the autonomy of relations?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this