Business euthanasia has been prohibited since 2015. Seriously ill, however, repeatedly demand the right to self-determined death. Now the Federal Constitutional Court is ruling.
- Paragraph 217 of the Criminal Code has prohibited business-related euthanasia since 2015.
- The Hamburg society euthanasia Germany and some seriously ill people have sued.
- The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe makes its decision today.
Euthanasia: Court unexpectedly tilts law - Spahn fears fatal consequences
7:51 p.m .: Health Minister Jens Spahn , who has a lot to do with the corona virus these days anyway, is skeptical about the decision of the constitutional court . He fears bad social consequences.
The CDU politician emphasizes to the German Press Agency how important the strong regulation of suicide aid is. Advisory duties and waiting periods would have to be discussed.
Spahn requires a strict approach to prove the seriousness and duration of the death wish . In any case, he wants to avoid developing a “ socially expected duty ”.
Verdict Hammer: Court overturns euthanasia law
17:23: The reactions to the judgment on euthanasia vary. The topic is emotional. However, the Federal Constitutional Court judged beyond moral standards, relying purely on the Basic Law. "The decision to help euthanasia creeps," writes a user on Twitter. "I can well imagine the soon increasing pressure for 'socially acceptable early death', especially on sick old people, in the name of efficiency and no alternative."
The verdict on #terstfefe is creepy. I can well imagine the soon increasing pressure for "socially acceptable early death", especially on sick old people in the name of efficiency and no alternative.
- Dr. Alexander Will (@AF_Will) February 26, 2020"There is a right to life, but no coercion," another writes.
There is a right to life, no compulsion to live. #Euthanasia
- Florian Schroeder (@Schroeder_Live) February 26, 2020Federal Constitutional Court overturns euthanasia law - critics see patients in the death trap
13:06: The judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court has far-reaching consequences than maybe originally assumed. In theory, with the right to self-determined death, people without a fatal illness could ask for help to leave life. Health Minister Jens Spahn now has to deal with the details and possible consequences - and a regulated implementation. Meanwhile, the judgment from Karlsruhe also met with criticism.
The German Palliative Foundation, for example, criticizes the verdict as going into a kind of euthanasia product . "Now the easing of suicide for the sick and tired of life becomes a normal service," commented the foundation on Wednesday in Fulda. The board of the German Foundation for Patient Protection, Eugen Brysch, has similar fears. His fears are even greater: "This turns suicide into a natural therapy option." Legislators have no instrument to put a stop to now.
Federal Constitutional Court overturns euthanasia law - criticism hails
“The judgment may sound like self-determination , but it ignores the reality of life. After all, more than half of the people would rather choose suicide than move to a nursing home. ”The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court increases the pressure on lonely, old and weak people, Brysch is convinced. "This will fundamentally change the solidarity with those seeking help in our society."
There are also critics of judgment in politics. Union parliamentary group vice-president Hermann Gröhe (CDU), for example, has demanded that the consequences of the euthanasia judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court be carefully examined. The court also expressly recognized that there was a legitimate interest of the state to protect, said Gröhe. However, the regulations should be less restrictive. He himself "regrets" the decision of the court.
Federal Constitutional Court overturns euthanasia law - what that means
10.55 a.m .: The President of the Federal Constitutional Court Andreas Voßkuhle further justifies the decision of the court against paragraph 217. Legislators can do suicide prevention and expand palliative care. The impunity of euthanasia is not at his free disposal - because without a third party, the individual cannot implement his decision to commit suicide.
Specifically, this means that the judgment does not oblige a doctor to provide euthanasia against his conviction. According to Voßkuhle, however, the legislature has “a wide range of options” for regulating suicide assistance.
According to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, the right to help with death does not depend on whether there is an incurable disease. It relates to the fundamental right of man to self-determined death - in every phase of life. "We may regret his decision, we may try everything to change his mind, but we must ultimately accept his free decision."
Federal Constitutional Court overturns euthanasia law - what that means
10:27 a.m .: The ban on business-related euthanasia introduced in 2015 violates the Basic Law. There is a right to self-determined death, said the President of the Federal Constitutional Court, Andreas Voßkuhle , on Wednesday when the judgment was pronounced in Karlsruhe. That includes the freedom to commit suicide and take advantage of offers from third parties. The new criminal law paragraph 217 makes this largely impossible. The judges declared the ban void after complaints from sick people, euthanasia workers and doctors. (Az. 2 BvR 2347/15 and others)
Clause 217 penalizes the "business-like promotion of suicide". Violators face up to three years in prison or a fine. Only relatives and "relatives" who support suicide remain unpunished. The legislature wanted to prevent suicide aid associations such as euthanasia Germany or Dignitas from Switzerland to expand their offers for paying members and to become socially acceptable. Nobody should feel pressured to end their lives.
Euthanasia paragraph 217 is incompatible with the Basic Law and void
Professional assistants to death had largely ceased their activities in Germany since then, but sued the ban in Karlsruhe - as did several seriously ill people who wanted to use their services. Other constitutional complaints stand behind doctors who fear that they will be punished for the palliative medical treatment of terminally ill people. Some of them also want the freedom to be able to provide patients with a lethal medication in certain cases.
Euthanasia associations usually have their services paid for. "Business" in the legal sense does not mean commercial , but something like "designed to be repeated ". Active euthanasia - i.e. killing on request, for example by an injection - is and remains prohibited in Germany. With assisted euthanasia, the deadly medication is only provided, but the patient takes it himself.
Federal Constitutional Court: euthanasia paragraph 217 is "void"
Update of February 26, 2020, 10:06 a.m .: "In the name of the people", the Federal Constitutional Court announces that paragraph 217 is not compatible with the Basic Law. The law was "incompatible with the Basic Law and null and void," it said in the statement of the Federal Constitutional Court on Wednesday.
Euthanasia: Federal Constitutional Court makes a judgment
Announcement of origin from February 26, 2020:
Karlsruhe - seriously ill people sometimes want nothing more than a self-determined death . They feel forced by the state into an unnecessarily long suffering and plead for euthanasia in Germany *. On the other hand, there is the warning of a society in which euthanasia is opposed to expensive treatment. Old and sick people may feel compelled to commit suicide.
Seldom has a discussion been as emotional as that about assisted suicide. But the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court will not be emotional, not based on moral considerations, but according to the Basic Law. The judges in Karlsruhe will announce their judgment on Wednesday (Az. 2 BvR 2347/15 and others).
Euthanasia judgment: The Federal Constitutional Court announces its decision today
Since December 2015, Clause 217 has been punishing euthanasia as a service in the criminal code . There is a risk of up to three years in prison. Accordingly, a criminal offense is "who, with the intention of promoting the suicide of another, gives him the business opportunity to do so, procures or mediates". This is to politically prevent euthanasia against payment. This is how the state wants to act against people who, on a business basis, organize drugs or death homes. The goal is to prevent euthanasia from becoming socially acceptable.
This contrasts with the fundamental right to self-determination . This also includes the right to determine one's own death. In contrast to active euthanasia - killing on request - the aid to suicide is therefore basically unpunished. Paragraph 217 also expressly excludes relatives and "related parties" *. In addition, it is generally recognized that medical professionals have to do without life-prolonging measures if the patient no longer wants this.
At the palliative care unit or in the hospice , doctors are also allowed to give pain-relieving medication that carries the risk that the patient dies earlier (help with dying). Clause 217 should close a gap that excludes euthanasia for money.
Euthanasia judgment: definition - that's what the decision is about
Former Justice Senator Roger Kusch's Hamburg euthanasia association has largely put its activities on hold. According to association statistics, 254 paying members had committed suicide by 2015. In the meantime, however, there is the Swiss offshoot StHD: Since 2018, those wishing to die have been able to send a relative to Zurich, who comes back with deadly medication and "detailed instructions". Others are moving entirely to Switzerland: There, a total of 1,322 Germans committed suicide between 1998 and 2019 through the Dignitas euthanasia association alone, which is almost 44 percent of all Dignitas cases. In addition to the clubs, sick people in Karlsruhe complain that they can no longer use their help.
Two plaintiffs to whom Germany assisted suicide support after the scheduled examinations died during the long trial. "I held out," says Horst L., who has cancer, at the trial in April 2019. He had the strength to do so from the knowledge that he could pull the rip cord himself if necessary. The serenity has been gone since the ban. Another plaintiff, who is incurably suffering from COPD, says before the verdict to the mirror : "I do not accept that a few hundred parliamentarians decide how I should die."
Euthanasia judgment: In Germany, people have a fundamental right to commit suicide
They seem to think the ban is too broad. During the trial, court president Andreas Voßkuhle emphasized a fundamental right to suicide *. And points out: "You will probably not find a doctor at the moment to support you in this." Because "business-like" has nothing to do with money, but means "to be repeated". Palliative care professionals are also afraid of making themselves punishable - if they give the seriously ill opiates home for relief in potentially lethal doses or if they "fast fast" to accompany people who no longer want to eat and drink. Other doctors have complained because they would like to help seriously ill people who wish to die in hopeless situations.
Ultimately, it would be up to politics to develop a constitutional new regulation *. It can only be speculated as to what specifications Karlsruhe could make. At the trial, the judge's bench critically noted that the state had made the gentlest type of suicide virtually impossible. There is obviously a relevant group of people who want this variant. At that time, the idea of a counseling solution emerged several times, similar to the termination of pregnancy - flanked by the strictest security mechanisms such as a control commission or binding waiting periods until completion. Voßkuhle back then: "Then Mr. L. would have another chance."
Euthanasia Judgment is made today: Decision on paragraph 217 is made today
In 2017, the Federal Administrative Court issued a sensational judgment: "In extreme individual cases", the state must not refuse an anesthetist to an anesthetic that "enables him to perform a worthy and painless suicide". This is not part of the Karlsruhe process. With reference to paragraph 217, Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU) has since had the responsible federal institute reject all applications from sick people - more than 100 in the meantime. Spahn may now have to reposition himself. Or he waits for the next decision: after complaints by rejected applicants, the Cologne Administrative Court has suspended several proceedings - and submitted the cases in Karlsruhe.
nai / dpa / afp
* Merkur.de is part of the nationwide Ippen-Digital editors network.
List of rubric lists: © dpa / Uli Deck