Tomorrow, Thursday, the Bundestag will debate the first reading of a future regulation of assisted suicide. None of the draft laws on the table so far do sufficient justice to the will of the people and do not restrict existing rights. This was pointed out by the Vice President of the Humanist Association of Germany (HVD), Erwin Kress, in Berlin on Wednesday. “Three quarters of the population want to be able to find competent help at the end of their lives if they wish to end their lives voluntarily. Politicians often react to this with state regulation. Self-determination and the right to free choice are being crushed by overzealous protection of life and imposed care,” said Kress. The draft (Drs. 18/5373) of a group led by MP Michael Brand (CDU) wants to punish any organized assisted suicide with deprivation of liberty and only allow help from relatives and loved ones. “This draft fails to explain why amateurish assisted suicide by relatives, who are not always selfless, should be better than professional help,” criticized Erwin Kress here. “The draft goes so far that even German helpers could be punished for assisted suicide in Switzerland. Collateral damage caused by violent and risky suicides is condoned,” continued the Vice President of the Humanist Association. In addition, this draft threatens palliative or general practitioners who provide euthanasia or assisted suicide to seriously ill and very elderly patients at their carefully considered request with a prison sentence if they do so more than once. Renate Künast (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), Petra Sitte (DIE LINKE) and others are opposing the Brand bill with a draft law (Drs. 18/5375) that aims to defend the possibilities of self-determination at the end of life. Erwin Kress commented: “We believe that the basic idea that organized assisted suicide and suicide counselling must be available in order to realize the right to self-determination is the right one. We can also see this in Switzerland. There, over 80,000 members of the euthanasia organization EXIT make it clear that people want freedom of choice at the end of life. Unfortunately, the Künast draft deviates far from the tried and tested procedure in Switzerland in its subordinate regulations.” Erwin Kress went on to say that the group of MPs led by Peter Hintze (CDU), Carola Reimann, Karl Lauterbach (SPD) and others would have presented a somewhat more realistic picture of the reality of life in their draft (Drs. 18/5374). “They know about cruel illnesses at the end of life and do not make suffering through them compulsory. Doctors should be allowed to help with suicide without being threatened by professional ethics. However, the restriction to cases in which palliative care is no longer possible apart from sedation is again patronizing. Even multimorbid people or ALS patients, for example, must not be deprived of the freedom to decide on a self-determined end of life,” says Kress. With this group proposal, the circumstances would remain as they are in all cases not regulated there. Other organized assisted suicides would remain exempt from punishment. It was therefore originally intended to be coupled with additional prohibitions on assisted suicide in other draft laws. According to Kress, this will not be possible with the Brand draft, which is supported by Horst Seehofer, Volker Kauder and Hermann Gröhe, among others.
He emphasized: “Citizens’ right to self-determination must not fall victim to parliamentary paternalism. The existing laws are sufficient against alleged abuse or incitement to suicide. Instead of discussing bans, it would be better to establish a nationwide network of suicide counseling centers so that people in need can receive open-ended advice and work out alternatives with them. After all, it is also known that organized euthanasia prevents suicide in many cases.” So far, many statements on the regulation of assisted suicide have seemed absurd, continued Erwin Kress. “People are allowed to request artificial nutrition and artificial respiration. They can also ask their doctor to stop artificial feeding or ventilation so that they can die. But if they freely and reasonably request a means of dying quickly and peacefully, they should be denied this and those who are willing to help are threatened with deprivation of liberty. This is not an acceptable situation either for the majority of the population or for many doctors,” says Kress.
