ESTONIA – The right to self-determination over one’s own end of life in Estonia
06 May 2026
Guest article by Paul Tammert*
Development in the population of Estonia
Estonia’s demographic trends have followed a similar pattern to those in other industrialised countries: the baby-boom generation was followed by a sharp decline in the birth rate. As a result, the proportion of older people in the total population is rising. This, in turn, means there is increasingly less funds in the national budget for pensions and the treatment of illnesses affecting older people.
The NGO Kodanik
The Non-Government-Organisation (NGO) Kodanik was founded with an aim to protect civil rights and strengthen civil society. First, we defined the concept of “freedom”. Then we focused on the question of how civil society can be strengthened politically and economically.
Legal positivism
For personal reasons, the question suddenly arose: does a person have the right to a self-determined death? To answer this question, we analysed the Estonian legal system and worked our way through monographs on the principle of the rule of law and its historical development.
We came to the conclusion that the idea “right to die” is restricted, on the one hand, by a materialistic worldview and, on the other, by the Estonian (and most of continental European countries) concept of legal positivism, i.e. by the view that the politicians and (party) officials think that they know what is good for the people and guide them through laws and decrees. This in turn gives rise to the view that the human body is the property of the state and that a person may die only, if doctors or judges grant permission to do so.
An analysis of Estonian law has shown that, whilst our constitution was drafted in accordance with the principle of negative right, most of the implemented legislation falls under positive law1.
Since our constitution enshrines the right to life but does not impose an obligation to live, and since the positivist-oriented implementing legislation makes no mention of suicide, we concluded that people who wish to do so should be able to receive support in this regard.
A precedent court case
After an individual, who had been supported by NGO Kodanik with know-how and technical device, carried out suicide with the helium-method but failed, a criminal investigation was opened. The prosecutor’s office filed charges of “unauthorized business activity”. The justification was that the ordinary electrical component purchased from a store, to which an alarm button was attached for convenient activation of the process, was a medical device and that helium was a therapeutic gas. Based on this evidence, charges were filed for “providing a licensed medical service”. The first-instance court convicted NGO Kodanik for committing a criminal offence. After our appeal, the second-instance court explained: if an official says “no,” it means that it is not permitted, even if there is no legal basis for the prohibition. However, the Supreme Court overturned the charges because they lacked legal basis2.
Worldview
The second reason why those in power wish to deny the right to self-determination over life and death is based on a materialist worldview. For those who believe that the human soul arises from nothing at birth and that soul, consciousness and the mind are phenomena of the brain, it is understandable that they do not wish to lose this unique situation (own life) and are prepared to suffer from this without limit and to demand the same of others.
The question of human sovereignty is closely related to the concept of “individual personality”. This means that the question of suicide arises only among people with a developed mindset, who want to decide for themselves, organize their own lives and, therefore, naturally decide for themselves when it should end. However, people who have learned to carry out and obey orders of others cannot think in any other way, which is why it is natural for them that the question whether someone decides that they can die and is ready to carry out this decision is not for them to take.
Those who believe in the existence of a spiritual world and an afterlife – that is, who accept the idea that the human soul passes through various incarnations and that the meaning of life lies in development through the cycles of life and death – experience birth and death as natural phenomena. Based on near-death experiences, Rudolf Steiner’s lectures3 and the teachings in the Urantia Book4, we assume that death is merely a transition from one state to another. This means that if a person has fulfilled their duties towards their loved ones, and their body is no longer able to live independently due to old age or illness and only suffering remains, they have the right to decide for themselves on the duration of their life.
The aforementioned 20th-century introductions to the spiritual world emphasize that the basis of the Universe is Love, i.e. the desire to do good to others. Therefore, if we help a person to free themselves from the suffering of the end of life, then we are doing good and acting morally, i.e. we are doing to others what we want to happen to ourselves.
Conclusion
The NGO Kodanik does not advocate for the legalisation of institutionalized (i.e. provided by a state agency) assisted dying (may it be voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide), but believes that no one – certainly not someone who has made a well-reflected, rational decision about this – should be prevented from ending their own life. All known historical examples of a legal ban on suicide have failed to achieve the desired outcome. However, it can also prove fatal for others if they are injured in the suicide process.
Attempts to legalise assisted dying are failing continually. The reason for this can be, on the one hand, the desire of authorities to prevent the decline of the population in our aging society, but it can also be due to business interests – i.e. the fear of doctors and private owners of nursing homes to lose their growing incomes. This is precisely why the right to die and to decide for oneself is very important from the point of view of civil liberties. In addition, it also puts pressure on those in power to legalise assisted dying institutionally.
We are convinced that every individual has the right to leave their physical body with dignity and at the time when they are ready to do so. Everyone has the opportunity to help their loved ones if they so wish and are themselves prepared to do so. If we provide a person with a means that they themselves can (maybe and if they choose so) use to end their life, no one can be charged with murder.
However, the Estonian Criminal Code stipulates that failure to provide help to a dying person is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. This provision is intended to ensure that help is provided following an accident, but it may also apply when relatives are present with the dying person and do not prevent them from initiating their own death. We still need to clarify this legal hurdle.
___
* Paul Tammert is the founder of the Non-Government-Organisation (NGO ) Kodanik in Estonia
1 As to the principles of negative and positive rights, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights: for a more detailed explanation: https://kodanik.eu/oigus (in Estonian)
2 For more, see here: https://kodanik.eu/sonumid-2 (in Estonian)
3 e.g. “At the Gates of Spiritual Science”
4 see: https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-112-personality-survival
