The law needs to protect citizens' "right to die". With the rapid development of modern medical technology, extending life in an artificially limited way has become possible. Accordingly, the "right to die", especially the choice of life self-determination and end-of-life medical treatment, has become a social and legal issue that cannot be avoided. In this article, we will analyse specific cases from the perspectives of competent and incompetent patients to demonstrate the connection between the "right to die" and the human rights of citizens and explore the legal protection of the "right to die". The paper will discuss the need for legal protection of the "right to die". It is argued that the safety of the 'right to die within the framework of human rights is the basis for protecting the right to self-determination and dignity of citizens and the defence of Article 8 rights in the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights. The security of the patient's right to self-determination and dignity, based on the best interests principle, will help build consensus in the legal. Medical and ethical fields promote the construction of a legal system of death that aligns with traditional culture and the modern concept of the rule of law.

Shuzheng Sun. Critical Analysis the on the Citizens' ‘Right to Die’. Academic Journal of Humanities & Social Sciences (2023) Vol. 6, Issue 2: 27-33. https://doi.org/10.25236/AJHSS.2023.060206.

[1] Griffin J. On human rights[M]. Oxford University Press, 2008: 150-152.

[2] Wicks E. The right to refuse medical treatment under the European Convention on Human Rights [J]. Medical Law Review, 2001, 9: 17.

[3] England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division). [1992] EWCA Civ 18[EB/OL]. BAILII. 1992 [2023-01-19]. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1992/18.html.

[4] Canada Ontario Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. Dominion law reports vol. 67[S]. Canada Ontario Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, 1990: 321-339.

[5] Stauch M. Comment on Re B (Adult: Refusal of Medical Treatment) [2002] 2 All England Reports 449[J]. Journal of Medical Ethics, 2002, 28(4): 232-233. 

[6] European Court of Human Rights. Pretty v. the United Kingdom - 2346/02 - Judgment 29.4.2002 [Section IV][EB/OL]. 2002 [2023-01-19]. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=002-5380.

[7] Supreme Court of Canada . Carter v. Canada (Attorney General) [2015] 1 SCR 331[EB/OL]. 2015 [2023-01-19]. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14637/index.do.

[8] Behuniak S M. Death with “dignity”: the wedge that divides the disability rights movement from the right to die movement[J]. Politics and the Life Sciences, 2011, 30(1): 17-32.

[9] Halliday S. Comparative reflections upon the Assisted Dying Bill 2013: A plea for a more European approach[J]. Medical Law International, 2013, 13(2-3): 135-167.

[10] European Court of Human Rights. Case of Haas v. Switzerland (Application no. 31322/07) [EB/OL]. 2001 [2023-01-19]. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-102940.

[11] European Court of Human Rights. Case of Big Brother Watch and Others v. The United Kingdom (Applications nos. 58170/13, 62322/14 and 24960/15)[EB/OL]. 2021 [2023-01-19]. https://hudoc. echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-210077.

[12] Wicks E. The Supreme Court judgment in Nicklinson: One step forward on assisted dying; two steps back on human rights: A commentary on the Supreme Court judgment in R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice; R (AM) v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] UKSC 38[J]. Medical Law Review, 2015, 23(1): 144-156.

[13] The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. R (on the application of Nicklinson and another) (AP) (Appellants) v Ministry of Justice (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 38)[EB/OL]. 2014 [2023-01-19]. https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0235.html.

[14] Herring, J. R (Conway) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWCA Civ 275, Court of Appeal [M]// Essential Cases: Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. 

[15] Hobson C. Is It Now Institutionally Appropriate for the Courts to Consider Whether the Assisted Dying Ban is Human Rights Compatible? Conway v Secretary of State for Justice [J]. Medical Law Review, 2018, 26(3): 514-530.

[16] United Kingdom House of Lords. Airedale N.H.S. Trust v Bland [1993] Appeal Cases 789[EB/OL]. 1993 [2023-01-19]. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1993/17.html.

[17] British Medical Association Medical Ethics Committee. Withholding and withdrawing life- prolonging medical treatment: Guidance for decision making, 3rd ed[EB/OL]. 2007 [2023-01-11]. http://www.gmc-uk.org/.

[18] General Medical Council. Treatment and care towards the end of life: Good practice in decision making [EB/OL]. 2010 [2023-01-11]. http:// www. gmc-uk. org/.

[19] US Supreme Court. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)[EB/OL]. 1990 [2023-01-11]. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/497/261/.

[20] Heywood R. Moving on from Bland: the evolution of the law and minimally conscious patients[J]. Medical Law Review, 2014, 22(4): 548-571. 

[21] Mental Health Law Online. [2011] EWHC 2443)[EB/OL]. 2011 [2023-01-19]. https://www. mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/.

[22] The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent) v James (AP) (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 67)EB/OL]. 2013 [2023-01-19]. https://www. supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2013-0134.html.

[23] Halliday S, Formby A, Cookson R. An assessment of the court's role in the withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration from patients in the permanent vegetative state[J]. Medical Law Review, 2015, 23(4): 556-587.

[24] Wicks E. When is life not in our own best interests? The best interests test as an unsatisfactory exception to the right to life in the context of permanent vegetative state cases[J]. Medical Law International, 2013, 13(1): 75-97.