The panel discussion on June 3, 2015 at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities was already fully booked weeks in advance. It was therefore no wonder that all the seats in the Einstein Hall of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities were taken when Erwin Kress, Vice President of the Humanist Association of Germany, opened the debate with clear words and demands. The panel discussion was organized by the Humanist Association, the Humanist Union and the Giordano Bruno Foundation.
Kress reiterated that the right to determine one’s own end of life with dignity is a human right. He emphasized his rejection of all efforts to ban (organized) assisted suicide in general – as is being demanded in particular by churches and conservative politicians in the current debates in the Bundestag. He expressly welcomed the Berlin doctor Uwe-Christian Arnold in the audience, one of the few doctors in Germany who, through practical help and public education, has contributed for years to making assisted suicide in Germany known as a legal and humanly and medically helpful method of medical action at the end of life.
Members of the Bundestag Petra Sitte (Die Linke) and Karl Lauterbach (SPD) as well as representatives of two euthanasia associations – Roger Kusch(Sterbehilfe Deutschland) and Ludwig Minelli(Dignitas Deutschland) – and psychologist Gita Neumann, head of the Federal Central Office for Living Wills, then discussed their perspectives and points of view on the podium.
Based on the current situation that suicide is exempt from punishment in Germany and therefore assisted suicide is not prohibited, the current debate in the German Bundestag is about the extent to which assisted suicide should be regulated or restricted. There are now several drafts on the table in which different groups of MPs, mostly from different parliamentary groups, outline how they envisage the legal situation on assisted suicide in the future – ranging from a far-reaching (criminal) ban to largely retaining the current legal situation. As a co-author of a position paper entitled “More care instead of more criminal law”, Petra Sitte was very committed in the debate to creating legal and social conditions in which self-determined and autonomous decisions at the end of life are possible: “Being at peace with yourself and your life is an absolutely wonderful idea for everyone. All people should be granted that. I therefore do not believe that bans on the end of life are permissible.” She also argued that competent doctors, relatives and altruistic associations can certainly provide help.
Karl Lauterbach, co-author of another draft for the Bundestag, explicitly advocated a change to the current legal situation in order to provide legal certainty for doctors in particular. This is because the professional code of conduct of individual state medical associations currently prohibits doctors from assisting suicide in any way. Lauterbach wants to prevent such regulations by the chambers in the long term so that patients have the opportunity to discuss the issue with doctors and, if necessary, receive qualified medical support. He made it clear that he wants practical last aid to be exclusively in the hands of doctors, but that associations should continue to play an advisory and supportive role. He spoke out clearly against a ban on or discrimination against euthanasia associations, but insisted, despite numerous objections during the discussion, that assisted suicide should only be provided by doctors in accordance with the law.
Gita Neumann, on the other hand, argued that the liberal criminal law situation in Germany should not be changed, but rather that competent advice and support should be provided – for example by promoting gerontological-psychological care and the establishment of counseling centers for suicides.
Chairman Roger Kusch provided an insight into the activities of the German Euthanasia Association. He explained how extensive the consultation with members is before the “green light” is given for euthanasia and clarified the ethical principles that guide the association’s decisions and actions. The transparency of Sterbehilfe Deutschland – especially in financial terms – was important to him, also in response to questions. With around 700 members of the association, he confirmed 193 cases of assisted suicide to date and at the same time pointed out that there are 83 people who have the “green light” but have not yet made use of it – for Kusch a clear sign of the moral integrity of the association. During the debate, Kusch expressed his disappointment that many politicians wanted to criminalize organized euthanasia and announced that he would lodge a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court once a corresponding law had been passed in the Bundestag.
The chairman of Dignitas Germany, Ludwig A. Minelli, argued with great commitment against the stigmatization of suicide by politicians and the media and referred to the enormous number of failed suicide attempts and their consequences. In his view, in Germany a community of interests consisting of medical organizations, the medical industry, pharmaceutical companies and churches – the latter primarily as powerful sponsors of many hospitals and nursing homes – is preventing the legalization and simplification of assisted dying in order to secure the billions in revenue from the follow-up treatment of failed suicides.
To summarize this evening, it can be said that there were some very different ideas put forward as to what a generally acceptable regulation on these ethically and morally controversial issues might look like. It is therefore certain that the public debate on these issues of self-determination at the end of life will continue to occupy us intensively over the coming months.
U. Tünsmeyer
