Euthanasia is no longer a taboo for people in our country, as the latest surveys show. Erwin Kress, Vice President of the Humanist Association of Germany (HVD), comments: “It is not the master race ideology of ‘unworthy life’ that is taking hold here. It is people’s varied experience of nursing homes and intensive care units, where living and dying with dignity is often not permitted, and where even a doctor with insight is forbidden to assist a person who wishes to commit suicide.”
Some Union leaders thought they could eradicate euthanasia, which they hated ‘on principle’, by putting a stop to the “profiteers”. However, the debate surrounding the FDP Ministry of Justice’s attempt to implement the relevant agreement from the coalition agreement now shows this: This is not the way to do it!
The state no longer has a mandate to protect life where a citizen no longer wishes to have his life protected of his own free will and despite offers of help. Since suicide based on recognizably free will is exempt from punishment, assistance must also be provided. The first legal task in this context would be to clarify this.
The parties addressed in the new draft law, such as relatives, friends, loved ones, doctors and nurses who have been entrusted with the suicidal person for a long time, must first of all be released from their position as guarantors. This still obliges them and other parties involved to save a suicidal person after they have become unconscious. At the same time, it must be made clear that assisted suicide is punishable in all cases where it is not a matter of a free will decision, where possible help may not yet be known, or where assisted suicide is carried out out of self-interest.
The legislator continues to evade this legal clarification, which has been demanded for years by the German Jurists’ Conference and also proposed by the HVD to the Ministry of Justice (see below). Instead, they are trying to put the cart before the horse.
The organizations into whose arms people seeking help are driven by the refusal of medical help and legal clarification should be banned. “The soon to be lone criers in the forest of leaves, such as Montgomery, Kauder or Hüppe, do not help, they refuse to help,” says Erwin Kress.
A look at the American states of Oregon and Washington could also show how the problem can be tackled. This would also show that the nonsense of the Commissioner for the Disabled, Mr. Hüppe, that disabled and seriously ill people could come under pressure to make use of euthanasia if doctors were allowed to help the suicidal person, is nonsense.
Alternative legislative proposal of the HVD 2012 to amend the StGB
§ Section 214 Non-prevention of suicide
(1) Anyone who fails to prevent the suicide of another person or to save him or her after an attempted suicide does not act unlawfully if the suicide is based on a freely responsible and serious decision that has been expressly declared or is recognizable from the circumstances.
(2) In particular, such a decision may not be assumed,
1. if the other person is not yet 18 years old or his/her free will is impaired in accordance with §§ 20, 21 StGB or
2. if it is reasonable to assume that his or her decision would have been different if the other person had been aware of alternative options to help or reduce suffering or if there had been no direct influence by third parties.
(3) Paragraph 1 shall also apply to persons in a guarantor position.
§ Section 214a Assisted suicide for personal gain
Anyone who assists or induces another person to commit suicide for profit or other selfish motives is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty.
§ Section 214b Commercial advertising for assisted suicide
Any person who publicly for financial gain or in a grossly offensive manner
1. own or third-party services to carry out or promote a suicide or
2. offers or advertises means, objects or methods suitable for suicide with reference to this suitability is liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding two years or to a monetary penalty.
