Two months before the planned vote in the German Bundestag on a legal restriction on assisted suicide, the Alliance for Self-Determination until the End of Life, which is made up of eight organizations (including the Humanist Association of Germany), has presented a six-point paper. In the text, the alliance calls on parliamentarians to vote against the criminalization of assisted suicide. Among other things, the alliance refers to the expert opinions of the Bundestag’s Scientific Service, which became public on 26 August 2015 and which assume that the draft laws being discussed in parliament are unconstitutional in various ways. Since it was founded in spring 2014, the Alliance for Self-Determination until the End of Life has been fighting against the criminalization of assisted suicide, which has been permitted to date, with a large number of campaigns and publications. This corresponds to the clear vote of the German population. After all, two thirds of Germans would like to be able to shorten their suffering with medical assistance in the event of a serious illness. The Alliance’s position is also supported by the majority of experts. In April 2015, for example, over 140 German teachers of criminal law issued a joint resolution against a criminal law ban on assisted suicide. Medical societies have also spoken out clearly against such a ban. Just a few days ago, the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology published a statement strictly rejecting any new criminal law paragraph on assisted suicide. The public and experts agree: the public prosecutor does not belong at the deathbed! However, the question is whether the responsible politicians will follow this clear vote in the fall. The original wording of the six-point paper by the Alliance for Self-Determination at the End of Life:
No prosecutor at the deathbed!
Against “shots in the dark” to criminalize medical and non-medical suicide helpers
In April 2015, more than 140 German teachers of criminal law rejected the planned criminalization of assisted suicide on constitutional, criminal law and medical ethical grounds. In mid-August, the German Society for Haematology and Medical Oncology spoke out against a new criminal law paragraph on assisted suicide. A few days later, expert reports from the Bundestag’s Scientific Service became known which contain serious constitutional objections to three of the four legislative proposals currently being discussed in parliament. In view of the clear vote of the experts and the clear attitude of the German population, which overwhelmingly rejects a ban on assisted suicide, we are reinforcing our urgent request to the members of the German Bundestag: Please refrain from a premature criminalization of people who conscientiously support and accompany seriously ill or very elderly people who wish to commit suicide! Do not vote for any draft that contains a new criminal law paragraph – even if it presents itself as a “middle way”! Because any new criminal law regulation would only put doctors, patients and relatives under pressure and place an additional burden on them in serious emergency situations. The reports by the Bundestag’s Scientific Service have once again made it clear how difficult and controversial many legal issues are in connection with assisted suicide. We therefore advocate refraining from legislative “shots in the dark”. Regulations that are repealed shortly afterwards by the Federal Constitutional Court are useless and harmful. The renunciation of the criminal prohibition should make a new ethical reflection within the medical profession inevitable, which would be very welcome. We trust that the legal situation will continue to be clarified by the courts, in particular the Federal Court of Justice, in the interests of patient autonomy and medical freedom of conscience, and that the parliamentary legislature will follow suit. In any case, the disadvantages of a new criminalization far outweigh any supposedly rapid need for regulation. We base this on the following arguments: 1. it is not possible to make a distinction under criminal law between doctors who have assisted a seriously suffering patient to commit suicide once in their professional life and those who do so from time to time as part of their (always commercial in the doctor-patient relationship) work. It is also not possible to determine persons who are more or less “close” to the suicidal person in terms of criminal law. Such drafts therefore violate the requirement of certainty in the Basic Law, according to which it must be clear who is liable to prosecution. 2. terminally ill patients need compassion and medical and human support. Decisions at the end of life must, as far as possible, be made jointly by the dying person and their doctor. In accordance with the principles of medical ethics, the doctor must be guided by the will and well-being of his patient and by his conscience, without fear of possibly making himself liable to prosecution. This does not require a public prosecutor.
3. the public prosecutor’s offices in Germany are obliged to open investigations if there is even a suspicion of a criminal offense “against life”. New, indeterminate criminal norms that place medical acts under general suspicion under criminal law can therefore also be very damaging if courts later find that the suspicion was unfounded. In such cases, acquittal comes too late – even criminal investigations can potentially destroy the existence of (palliative) doctors. Any new criminalization must therefore be justified beyond doubt and its effects must be considered with the utmost care. (4) The draft bill by MPs Brand and Griese proposes to criminalize commercial forms of assisted suicide by associations or individuals. Such forms of euthanasia should not become a routine offer. However, if the draft were to become law, it would lead to parts of the medical profession, particularly those involved in the care of life-threatening patients, being drawn into a gray area of criminal law. This view is not only held by lawyers. The German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology also strictly rejects any new criminal law paragraph on assisted suicide. 5. in line with the draft by MPs Hintze, Reimann and Lauterbach, any criminal law prohibition should be dispensed with. As much as a more tolerant assessment of the possibilities for medical action in the area of assisted suicide by all state medical associations is desirable and necessary, this can hardly be brought about by the federal legislator – especially not with such a strong intensity of regulation as is the case in both the Hintze et al. draft and the Künast, Sitte et al. draft. 6) The argument that forms of medical euthanasia, which have been undisputedly permissible for many decades, must now be prevented by criminal law, because otherwise there would be a risk that the dying would be put under pressure, is misguided. In the course of the legislation on living wills, the same arguments were made against the possibility of not using life-prolonging measures. However, these fears have not been empirically confirmed. To date, there is no evidence that relatives or third parties have exerted pressure on patients to make use of “passive euthanasia”.
The alliance for self-determination until the end of life consists of: Humanistischer Verband Deutschlands, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Humanes Sterben, Giordano Bruno Foundation, Humanistische Union, Internationaler Bund der Konfessionslosen und Atheisten, Bund für Geistesfreiheit Bayern, Dachverband Freier Weltanschauungsgemeinschaften, Koordinierungsrat säkularer Organisationen.
Website of the campaign My end belongs to me – For the right to last aid:
