Euthanasia - when is it punishable?
Luise Heine has been an editor at since 2012. The qualified biologist studied in Regensburg and Brisbane (Australia) and gained experience as a journalist in television, in the Ratgeber-Verlag and in a print magazine. In addition to her work at , she also writes for children, for example for the Stuttgarter Kinderzeitung, and has her own breakfast blog, “Kuchen zum Frühstück”.
More posts by Luise Heine All content is checked by medical journalists.Live self-determined, die self-determined - that is the main argument for many proponents of euthanasia. You can find out what types of euthanasia there are and what the legal framework for this is in Germany here.
Falling asleep healthy in old age and not waking up again - this idea of dying only becomes a reality for a few. Dying often drags on and can be associated with pain and drastic impairment of the quality of life. Last but not least, many dying do not want to be “a burden” to their environment. All of this stirs up fears and arouses the desire in some to decide for themselves when to die - even if the help of third parties is necessary.
What is euthanasia?
Can you help someone die? This is an often debated issue that both ethicists and legislators have been asking themselves over and over again. In principle, different forms of euthanasia are defined:
Passive euthanasia: Here, life-prolonging measures (e.g. artificial nutrition, ventilation or the administration of certain life-sustaining medication) are not continued. The basis for this is usually the patient's express will, for example in the form of an advance directive. If this is the case, passive euthanasia is not a criminal offense in Germany.
Indirect euthanasia: This means, for example, the administration of painkillers or sedatives that alleviate the suffering, but at the same time limit life expectancy. An example are opiates, which take away pain and anxiety, but at the same time also dampen breathing. As a result, death often occurs earlier than without measures to alleviate suffering - a fact that is accepted. This indirect euthanasia is not punishable in Germany - also expressly confirmed by a judgment of the Federal Court of Justice in 1996. Indirect euthanasia is therefore not punishable in Germany.
Assisted suicide: A suicide - for example with a poison cocktail - is not punished legally. From a purely legal point of view, assisting suicide is also not punishable. Up until now, the rule for doctors was that they were obliged to save a suicide victim after they became unconscious. With a decision of July 3, 2019, the Federal Court of Justice abolished this regulation. If a patient asks his doctor not to treat him after taking lethal drugs, the doctor does not have to rescue him. On February 26th, 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court overturned the controversial euthanasia paragraph 217 completely - this means that doctors can support the suicide of patients with impunity. The scope for discretion for this must be defined more precisely.
Active euthanasia: It is also called “killing on demand” and is punishable in Germany - even after paragraph 217 was overturned. What is meant is that it is not the person affected who ingests a lethal drug himself, but a third party actively administers it. If, for example, this third person tips the aspirant with a means that intentionally kills him, it is active euthanasia - even if the dying person has expressly requested it. Anyone who is guilty here must expect a prison sentence of between six months and five years.
Discussion point: assisted suicide
It was a historic decision that the Federal Constitutional Court made on February 26, 2020: Everyone has the right to die independently. Even if that requires the help of third parties. Everyone can make use of this right to assisted suicide - not just the critically ill at the end of their lives.
This contradicts what the legislators decided in 2015. The then Federal Minister of Health Hermann Gröhe wanted a comprehensive ban on all euthanasia services. Nobody should derive commercial benefit from the suffering and death of other people.
What was planned as an obstacle especially for organizations like Dignitas unsettled patients and doctors in particular. Because the business behavior laid down in the law does not relate to financial interests and greed for profit. Rather, everyone is liable to prosecution who regularly and repeatedly provides suicide assistance.
The current verdict is a heavy blow for opponents of euthanasia - they fear a "normalization" of suicide. It is very likely that the discussion about euthanasia will start all over again.
Now new legal regulations have to be found how the judge's verdict is to be put into practice. It is true that the judges named advisory obligations and waiting times or proof of the seriousness of the death wish as possible regulatory options. The exact scope and possibilities for assistance in suicide have not yet been determined.
