Tammert was charged with prohibited economic activity and providing healthcare services without a license. He had offered people, for a fee, the use of a device he had built that enabled them to end their own lives.

Both the county and circuit courts found Tammert guilty of conducting unlicensed economic activity in a field related to healthcare services.

Help dying not a healthcare service

The Supreme Court's Criminal Chamber explained that assisting someone in ending their own life does not constitute a healthcare service. The defendant was not involved in the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of any illness. He did not perform any medical or similar examinations or other diagnostic procedures. He did not determine what illness, if any, the person suffered from. Nor did the defendant irreversibly affect the individuals' health conditions — those actions were taken by the individuals themselves, the court stated.

The Supreme Court noted that Tammert's actions did not serve any of the legally required purposes of providing healthcare services. Current law does not recognize as treatment any activity that intentionally harms health. Therefore, causing death cannot be considered the provision of a healthcare service.

The Supreme Court further emphasized that every competent individual has the right to end their life voluntarily. Criminal liability for assisting in such an act can only arise if the person is unable to carry it out themselves or lacks full understanding of the significance of their actions.

Beyond resolving the criminal case, the Supreme Court pointed out that the absence of clear regulations governing assistance in voluntary death as a service has, until now, been a legislative choice.

"The concern voiced by the prosecutor during the hearing is understandable — that if assistance in ending life becomes offered as a service, clear principles will be necessary, considering the extent of intervention in a person's health and the need to prevent potential abuses. This would include establishing when such assistance may be provided, by whom, on what basis the necessity of the service would be determined and how the procedure would be carried out. The lack of clear principles could lead to undesirable consequences and expose the state to liability," the ruling stated.

According to the Supreme Court, the circuit court appropriately referred to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which holds that any assisted death system requires a strong legal framework that can be effectively and safely applied in practice. "If the state allows easy access to assisted dying services, it is particularly important to establish the necessary legal framework to prevent potential abuses in the provision of such services," the Supreme Court said.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!