Doctor’s conviction for assisted suicide of patients because he published a suicide guide! No violation of the freedom of expression
JUDGMENT
Lings v. Denmark 12.04.2022 (app. no. 15136/20)
SUMMARY
The applicant is a doctor and the founder of a pro-assisted-suicide organisation, Physicians in Favour
of Euthanasia. The case concerned his conviction on two counts of assisted suicide, and one count of
attempted assisted suicide. He asserted that he had just been disseminating information about
suicide.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights the
applicant complained that the final domestic-court decision had breached his right to free
expression.
The Court found in particular that the authorities had acted within their wide discretion in convicting
Mr Lings. The relevant law criminalised specific acts of assisted suicide, which the applicant had been
found guilty of, rather than general provision of information about suicide. The aims of the
authorities – protection of health and morals and the rights of others – had been legitimate.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Svend Lings, is a Danish national who was born in 1941 and lives in Copenhagen.
Mr Lings is the founder of Physicians in Favour of Euthanasia (Læger for Aktiv Dødshjælp), an
organisation that campaigns for assisted suicide. Under this umbrella, he produced a guide called
“Medicines suited to suicide” (Lægemidler der er velegnede til selvmord), which he published on the
Internet, legally under Danish law. It was a guide as to how to undertake suicide, including detailed
descriptions of the different medicines, their required doses, physical methods, and so forth.
In 2017, following a radio interview in which he outlined having assisted someone in committing
suicide, Mr Lings was struck off the medical register.
Mr Lings was later charged with two counts of assisted suicide and one count of attempted assisted
suicide, and on 26 September 2018 he was convicted on two counts. On appeal, however, the High
Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret), convicted him on all three counts. That decision was
upheld by the Supreme Court in 2019.
The facts for which Mr Lings was convicted included prescribing medication (Fenemal) to two
individuals with knowledge that they intended to commit suicide, and advising another to put a
plastic bag over her head, alongside an overdose of medication. Two died and one later recovered,
and indeed recovered full mental health following use of prescription drugs.
Mr Lings was finally sentenced to 60 days’ imprisonment, suspended, with his age being cited as a
mitigating factor.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The parties did not dispute that the applicant’s conviction had been an interference with his freeexpression rights. The Court proceeded on that basis. It also found that it had been prescribed by
law (Article 240 of the Criminal Code).
It noted that assisted suicide had been illegal in Denmark since 1930, and that the relevant law
provided that a specific act of assistance to commit suicide had to have taken place for conviction.
However, the Court was not called on to determine whether the criminalisation of assisted suicide
was justified, only whether it was “necessary in a democratic society” in this case. It noted in that
regard that the authorities have a duty to protect vulnerable members of society.
The Court emphasised that no right to assisted suicide existed under the Convention.
The Court took note of the Supreme Court’s final conclusions and saw no reason to disagree with
them, in particular that Mr Lings’ advice, although based on his guide to suicide, had pushed one of
the individuals towards suicide. Although publication of the guide had been legal, the case had
rested on the specific advice given to individuals. It held that neither the conviction nor the sentence
had been excessive in this case.
Overall, the domestic courts’ reasons for taking the decision they did – protection of health and
morals and the rights of others – had been legitimate, and they had acted within the wide discretion
(“margin of appreciation”) afforded to the authorities in this particular case.
The Court therefore found no violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
