Constitutional and judicial protection of human dignity in the Russian Federation (interpretative and individual bioethical aspects)

About the author:

Irina Yu. Krylatova, Cand. Sci. (Jur.), Associate Professor, Department of Constitutional Law, Ural State Law University named after V. F. Yakovlev, Ekaterinburg, Russia; krylatova_iy@mail.ru, https://orcid.org//0000-0003-4624-998X

Abstract:

The dynamism in the application of progressive biomedical technologies reveals the newest complex facets of understanding the nature of human dignity and the features of their constitutional and judicial protection. The article analyzes the constitutional judicial practice in the field of protecting the human dignity in the field of genomics, embryology, reproductive technologies, and transplantology, presents the opinions of the Russian scientists regarding the nature of constitutional and judicial protection of human dignity, presents the approaches formulated in the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in the area under study. Based on the results of the research, it is concluded that the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation when considering the specified categories of cases have a number of features that complicate the full disclosure of the bioethical potential of human dignity and human rights. The necessity of synchronizing bioethical principles such as uniqueness, vulnerability, autonomy, inviolability, inadmissibility of discrimination of human with the idea of human dignity is argued, which sets new vectors for the development of relevant social relations in the sphere of non-disclosure of genetic information, the search for a balance of rights and interests between the donor and the recipient in the field of transplantology, as well as guarantees of the rights of the unborn child.

References:

Antonenko, V. M. (2015). Preambles of constitutions and their significance. Constitutional and Municipal Law, (3), 9–12. [In Russian]

Bondar, N. S. (2017). Constitutional category of personal dignity in the value dimension: Theory and judicial practice. Constitutional and Municipal Law, (4), 19–31. [In Russian]

Vasilyeva, T. (2020). Constitutionalization of the concept of human dignity. Comparative Constitutional Review, 4(137), 98–110. https://doi.org/10.21128/1812-7126-2020-4-98-110 [In Russian]

Vlasova, O. V. (2011). Human Dignity as a Moral and Legal Value: General Theoretical Research [Dr. Sci. (Jur.) dissertation, p. 49, 85]. [In Russian]

Kapitonova, E. A., Romanovskaya, O. V., & Romanovsky, G. B. (2016). Legal Regulation of Transplantology. Prospect. [In Russian]

Kravets, I. A. (2019). Constitution of the Russian Federation, human rights and dignity of the individual: Dialogue of constitutional theory, practice of constitutional justice and international norms. Legal Science and Practice, 15(2), 93–104. [In Russian]

Kravets, I. A. (2025). Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the protection and defense of human dignity: The problem of legal polymorphism and legal judicial argumentation. Jurist, (4), 24–32. [In Russian]

Kuznetsov, V. V. (1998). Dignity as a Moral Value [Cand. Sci. (Philol.) dissertation, p. 15]. [In Russian]

Lavrik, M. A. (2006). Guarantees of Constitutional Human Rights (Somatic Aspect) [Cand. Sci. (Jur.) dissertation abstract, p. 10]. [In Russian]

Lazarev, L. (2004). Introduction. Forum: The role of the Constitutional Court in ensuring stability and developing law and order. Comparative Constitutional Review, 3(48), 78. [In Russian]

Nevinsky, V. V. (2018). The essence and universalization of constitutional values in modern society. Lex Russia, (11), 106–120. [In Russian]

Nesmeyanova, S. E. (2007). Judicial Practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with Commentaries. TK Velbi, Prospect Publishing House. [In Russian]

Orlova, O. V. (2015). Personality is the main value of civil society. State and Law, (6), 76–81. [In Russian]

Umnova-Konyukhova, I. A., & Aleshkova, I. A. (2020). The principle of constitutional restraint: Content and features of implementation. Constitutional and Municipal Law, (9), 20–25. [In Russian]

Sharakshane, S. A. (2007). Human Dignity: An Experience of Philosophical and Anthropological Understanding [Cand. Sci. (Philos.) dissertation abstract]. [In Russian]

Ertel, L. A. (2006). Informed consent as an autonomous permission for medical intervention. Administrative Law and Process, (2), p. 2. [In Russian]

Dworkin, R. (2011). Justice for Hedgehogs. Harvard University Press.

Gill M. B. (2004). Presumed consent, autonomy, and organ donation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 29(1), 37–59.

Gisbertz, P. (2016). Overcoming doctrinal school thought: A unifying approach for a new understanding of human dignity. The Future of Human Dignity. Bundled Abstracts. Utrecht, October, 11–13.

Kennedy, I., Sells, R. A., Daar, A. S., Guttmann, R. D., Hoffenberg, R., Lock, M., Radcliffe-Richards, J., & Tilney, N. (1998). The case for “presumed consent” in organ donation. The Lancet, 351(9116), 1650–1652.

Labonte, R., & Marriott, A. (2010). Confidentiality and sharing genetic information with relatives. The Lancet, 375, 1507–1509.

Laurie, G. T. (2001). Challenging medical-legal norms: The role of autonomy, confidentiality, and privacy in protecting individual and familial group rights in genetic information. The Journal of Legal Medicine, 22, 1–54.

Prabhu, P. K. (2018). Is presumed consent an ethically acceptable way of obtaining organs for transplant? Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 20(2), 92–97.