The Supreme Court acquitted Paul Tammert, who had offered a device he had made himself for people to use to end their own lives. The Court ruled that Tammert was not providing a healthcare service and therefore could not be accused of conducting economic activity without a license.

The Supreme Court said that assisted suicide needs to be regulated more precisely, but politicians and officials alike say that is unlikely to happen soon.

Paul Tammert was charged with providing people with the use of a device he had made himself, in exchange for money, which enabled them to end their own lives. While both county and circuit courts found Tammert man was found guilty of providing unlicensed healthcare, the Supreme Court acquitted him.

"There was nothing illegal or punishable about his actions. However, what he was doing is not a health service under the current law," said Supreme Court Judge Paavo Randma.

According to Randma, it has been known for a long time that regulations are needed regarding this issue, but so far the legislature has chosen not to deal with it.

"The question is whether this decision to end their life is a person's own and made of their genuine free will, and so the state should certainly create some form of regulation to determine that. For example, that this will is expressed within a certain period of time or that there are no external negative influences in terms of their loved ones," Randma added.

According to the Chair of the Riigikogu's Social Affairs Committee Signe Riisalo (Reform), the unexpected decision of the Supreme Court has created a complicated situation.

"Just as there is a side in society that is very much looking forward to assisted dying being regulated along with end-of-life wishes, and maybe even euthanasia at some point, there is also another side in our society that is actually afraid of it, that is cautious, that sees risks there. This type of really important idea needs to be thought out in a long and balanced way," Riisalo said.

According to Riisalo, for this to be implemented, society needs to be sure that it is safe, while people also need to have access to alternative options, such as pain relief treatment.

The amendment is considered beyond the capacity of the Riigikogu's Social Affairs Committee alone and therefore needs to be prepared jointly by the ministries of social affairs and justice, together with experts. Both Riisalo and the Ministry of Social Affairs agree that it will not be possible to change the regulations in the near future.

"If we are talking about the regulations regarding a patient's end-of-life wishes, then emotionally and also on a societal level it is a slightly simpler issue, it has taken, or we assume it will take, seven years. These are not issues that can be dealt with very quickly," explained Mariken Ross, Head of specialized assistance policy at the Ministry of Social Affairs.

According to Ross, the court ruling shows that there is a need for society to debate this issue, but at the moment the Ministry of Social Affairs is not actively dealing with it. According to the Supreme Court judge, there seems to be no legislative appetite to continue to deal with it, and so there remains a legal vacuum.

"It's possible that the ethical argument is being overstated. If I decide to end my own life, then that's my decision, and I ought to be given the possibility to take that option. Whether that is ethical or not is already no longer a matter for the legislature," said Judge Randma.

---

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