The article is devoted to a comparative legal study of the legalization of euthanasia in European countries and Ukraine. The authors have investigated the changes in the ECHR positions in the consideration of cases of euthanasia and assisted suicide. We concluded that the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights include an attempt to guarantee a balance in the right to choose the moment of death and the rights that are protected by 2 and 8 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The ECHR practice has been found to also influence the legalization of euthanasia in European states. Analysis of the laws of several European states in the context of legalizing the institution of euthanasia allowed us to group them as follows: European states that have legalized euthanasia (Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Spain); European states that have legalized only passive euthanasia (Great Britain, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Slovak Republic, Finland, Sweden, and Hungary); and European states that prohibit any kind of euthanasia (France, Poland, Romania, etc.).

The aim: To characterize cooperation of public authorities and local governments in the field of health care to identify problems that arise when providing free medical care to citizens of Ukraine through state and municipal health care facilities under conditions of COVID-19. Materials and methods: The methodological basis of the research is the general methods of scientific cognitivism as well as concerning those used in legal science: methods of analysis and synthesis, formal logic, comparative law etc. The norms of the adopted new legislation of Ukraine, as well as the practice of its application are analyzed. Conclusions: The following proposals for amendments and supplements to the legislation of Ukraine are substantiated: lack of clear definition of the role of hospital councils within the legislation of Ukraine; providing health care facilities that have separate buildings and isolation of COVID-19 patients; provision of medical aid to COVID-19 patients by a family doctor; establishment and functional activity of ambulance crews in the newly formed united territorial communities; ect.

The aim: To consider the general principles of the human right to sterilization in terms of medicine and law. Materials and methods: Formal-logical methods of analysis and synthesis allowed to reveal the content of the concepts that make up the subject of research, to classify them, as well as to formulate intermediate and general conclusions. The systematic method allowed to study the role and significance of right to sterilization among other human rights and freedoms. Using the historical method, the doctrinal basis of the study was analyzed, and the main stages of the formation of category “right to sterilization” with human participation were identified. Conclusions: The issue of surgical sterilization should not be considered during contractions, as happened in this particular case, but before or after childbirth, because a woman in childbirth can not adequately perceive information and make such important decisions. If this decision is made after delivery, the doctor must make sure that the patient is psychologically healthy. In addition, the consent for surgical sterilization of the spouses must be signed together. Although this procedure follows from the human right to dispose of one’s own body, however, in the presence of marriage, referring to Part 2 of Art. 54 of the IC of Ukraine, which states that all important issues of the family should be resolved by the spouses together, on the basis of equality. If such a decision is made by the wife alone, she must be considered to have committed the wrongful conduct.