It is about bringing together two of the three concepts on the table that are essentially the same. Joachim Stünker (SPD) and Michael Kauch (FDP) are the leading representatives of one group of MPs, which – admittedly without a single CDU/CSU MP – has so far been able to unite the most votes across all parliamentary groups. However, the representative of a second draft, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group deputy Joachim Zöller, evades any agreement.
The HVD states: “If a living will law is not passed in this legislative period, the Humanist Association of Germany fears an increase in “vigilante justice” against unlawful compulsory treatment. The topic is to be dealt with conclusively at the end of May. A cross-party harmonization to safeguard the patient’s right to self-determination without limiting the scope is within reach. During the hearing in the Legal Affairs Committee at the beginning of March, many experts argued in favor of merging the two concepts, which are essentially the same. Nevertheless, the chances of an adoption are slim: for weeks, representatives from the SPD and FDP have been approaching the CDU/CSU with offers of talks – but so far in vain.
The President of the HVD, Dr. Horst Groschopp, explains: “The Union’s chief negotiator, Joachim Zöller (CSU), is guilty of irresponsible obstructionism if he rejects the far-reaching concessions made by Joachim Stünker (SPD) and Michael Kauch (FDP). Mr. Zöller and the Chancellor behind his draft must allow themselves to be questioned as to the motives behind their policy of obstruction.”
The HVD cites the euthanasia trial that has just ended in Fulda as an example of what can happen without the rule of law. The attending physician, the daughter as guardian and the guardianship court agreed that a 77-year-old patient should finally be allowed to die in peace after five years in a coma. But the nursing home thwarted this with threats of coercive measures and bans. The daughter saw no other way to enforce her mother’s will than to cut her feeding tube.
Dr. Horst Groschopp explains: “It is about legal certainty for those people who decide autonomously to make an advance directive, as well as for their relatives, doctors, carers and nursing staff. The unteachable, who are immune to existing law and prevailing medical ethics, would see themselves strengthened if a living will law fails – and desperate relatives and patients will have to defend themselves against it by means that no one would consider desirable.”
