Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The German Law on Euthanasia: The Legal Basics and the Actual Debate

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advance Care Decision Making in Germany and Italy

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the German criminal law in regard to euthanasia. Referring to the traditional classification, active indirect euthanasia, passive euthanasia, and assistance in suicide are legal in Germany, whereas active direct euthanasia is a crime. As criminal law is to be interpreted in the light of the Constitution, the most relevant Constitutional principles such as human dignity, the right to life and physical integrity, and the right to self-determination are presented.

This legal overview is complemented by some of the currently most controversial issues within the topic. These include the impact of the new German law on living wills on the criminal law on euthanasia. Among other relevant debates, the issue of the criminalization of commercial assistance in suicide is discussed.

The chapter concludes that despite the difficulties in the practical differentiation, the law on euthanasia is rather clear in Germany. The problem that remains, however, is the legal insecurity still largely found among the population and also among physicians and even lawyers. This insecurity leads to a frequent circulation of unqualified warnings, for one of a discussion concerning the legalization of active direct euthanasia, which currently is not at all being considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Oduncu and Sahm (2010), p. 380.

  2. 2.

    Oduncu and Sahm (2010), p. 371.

  3. 3.

    Otto (1986).

  4. 4.

    Definition by the German National Ethics Council, which rejects the usage of the word euthanasia: German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 48.

  5. 5.

    As the word “euthanasia” still carries sensitivity, the German National Ethics Council distinguishes between “euthanasia” and the historical “criminal euthanasia” under the Nazi regime: German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 88.

  6. 6.

    A clear analysis of the legal conditions of euthanasia is difficult as many judgments only refer to a very specific situation and only rarely give a greater overview. Like in any other legal system, many German cases on euthanasia have only clarified individual aspects on the basis of mostly different and often unusual case constellations.

  7. 7.

    The German Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) is the joint association of all 17 State Chambers of Physicians (Landesärztekammern) and thereby the central organization in the system of medical self-administration in Germany. By representing the physicians’ interests, it plays an important opinion-forming role in matters of professional health and social policy, even with regard to legislative procedures. Even though its Opinions are not binding, they do have an enormous effect on the opinion-forming process. Physicians are compulsory members of the local State Chambers of Physicians and therefore indirect members of the German Medical Association, which is an unincorporated association (unlike the local State Chambers of Physicians, which are registered corporations under public law). See http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/ (English version available) (accessed 29 March 2012).

  8. 8.

    German Medical Association (2011).

  9. 9.

    German National Ethics Council (2006).

  10. 10.

    The Association of German Jurists (Deutscher Juristentag e.V.) is an organization with about 8,000 members of all legal professions that organizes the German Jurists Forums (Deutsche Juristentage) every 2 years. See http://www.djt.de/index.php?id=57 (accessed 20 June 2012). It has discussed euthanasia three times in the last years. Even though their decisions are not binding, the opinions (Gutachten) and the decisions (Beschlüsse) give a rather good impression of the German lawyer’s view on the issues of euthanasia. The latest conference on euthanasia was in the year 2006—where the majority of the lawyers voted for a special regulation of euthanasia, in addition to the civil law regulation.

  11. 11.

    Decision of the German Federal Court (BGH) from 8 May 1991 no. 3 StR 467/90 = BGHSt 37, 376; Engländer (2011), p. 513.

  12. 12.

    Section 1901 b (1) of the German Civil Code; Schulze (2012), Sec. 1901b, recital 3; Bamberger and Roth (2012), Sec. 1901b, recital 2; Salkić and Zwick (2012), p. 291.

  13. 13.

    BGH decision from 4 July 1984 no. 3 StR 96/84 = NJW 1984, 2639, p. 2642; Engländer (2011), p. 513, with further references; extensive discussion at Duttge (2006).

  14. 14.

    Grundsätze der Bundesärztekammer zur ärztlichen Sterbebegleitung, in its version of promulgation from 21 January 2011, Deutsches Ärzteblatt 108(7) (2011) A 346; Engländer (2011), p. 517.

  15. 15.

    Decision of the Regional Court Karlsruhe (LG Karlsruhe) from 30 August 1991 no. 10 O 291/91 = NJW 1992, 756; Taupitz (2000), p. A23; Verrel (1996), p. 226.

  16. 16.

    Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland—GG) of 23 May 1949 (Federal Law Gazette, p. 1), in the revised version published in the Federal Law Gazette, part III, class. No. 100-1, as last amended by Article 1 of the Law of 21 July 2010 (Federal Law Gazette, part I, p. 944). Unofficial English translation available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html (accessed 29 March 2012).

  17. 17.

    Taupitz (2000), p. A 24, with further references.

  18. 18.

    BGH decision from 17 March 2003 = NJW 2003, 1588, p. 1593.

  19. 19.

    Borasio (2012b), p. 166; Oduncu and Sahm (2010), p. 373; Schicketanz et al. (2010), with further references.

  20. 20.

    German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 46.

  21. 21.

    Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch—StGB) of 15 May 1871, in the version promulgated on 13 November 1998 (Federal Law Gazette, part I, p. 3322), last amended by Article 5 (3) of the Law of 24 February 2012 (Federal Law Gazette, part I, p. 212). Unofficial English translation available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html (accessed 29 March 2012).

  22. 22.

    BGH decision from 8 May 1991 = BGHSt 37, 376, where the Court had to decide whether “active euthanasia” performed against the patients’ wishes was murder or manslaughter. As the accused nurse acted out of compassion, she was convicted not of murder but of manslaughter.

  23. 23.

    Sayid (1983), p. 534.

  24. 24.

    Kutzer (2007), p. 61; Deutsch and Spickhoff (2008), p. 422; Wagner (2005), p. 63.

  25. 25.

    Schreiber (2006), p. 474.

  26. 26.

    Schreiber (2006), p. 474, referring in fn. 23 to the stenographical protocol of the hearing.

  27. 27.

    Czerner (2004), p. 11; Kusch (2007), p. 436; Kusch (2006), p. 261.

  28. 28.

    Enquete-Kommission “Recht und Ethik der modernen Medizin” (2002); Herbstkonferenz der Justizministerinnen und Justizminister 2005, TOP II.3, http://www.mj.niedersachsen.de/portal/live.php?navigation_id=3810&article_id=10280&_psmand=13. (accessed 13 August 2012).

  29. 29.

    This chapter does not deal with the question raised by experts in palliative care who argue that a correctly performed sedation of a patient did not shorten the patient’s life and who therefore question whether indirect euthanasia did have any practical relevance at all. See Borasio (2012b), p. 163, with further references.

  30. 30.

    BGH decision from 15 November 1996 no. 3 StR 79/96 = BGHSt 42, 301.

  31. 31.

    For an overview of the dispute, see Dreier (2007), p. 322.

  32. 32.

    Herzberg (1996), p. 3048; Jähnke et al. (2005), prior to Sec. 211, recital 16, with further references; Krey and Heinrich (2008), Sec. 1, recital 14; Tröndle (1987), p. 30.

  33. 33.

    Laufs and Kern (2010), § 149 Ärztliche Sterbehilfe, recital 12; Kühl and Lackner (2011), prior to Sec. 211, recital 7; BGH decision from 15 November 1996 no. 3 StR 79/96 = BGHSt 42, 301, p. 305; BGH decision from 07 February 2001 no. 5 StR 474/00 = BGHSt 46, 279, p. 285.

  34. 34.

    BGH decision from 15 November 1996 no. no. 3 StR 79/96 = BGHSt 42, 301, p. 305. See also German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 58.

  35. 35.

    Schöch et al. (2005), p. 553.

  36. 36.

    Verrel (2006).

  37. 37.

    German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 46.

  38. 38.

    Borasio (2012a), p. 152.

  39. 39.

    BGH decision from 17 March 2003 no. XII ZB 2/03 = BGHZ 154, 205.

  40. 40.

    Decision of the District Court Siegen (AG Siegen) from 28 September 2007 no. 33 XVII B 710 = NJW-Spezial 2008, 103; decision of the Regional Court Fulda (LG Fulda) from 30 April 2009 no. 16 Js 1/08—1 Ks = ZfL 2009, 97, p. 107.

  41. 41.

    Roxin (1999), p. 6; Schroth (2006), p. 551, with further references.

  42. 42.

    Czerner (2005), p. 96; Roxin (1969), p. 395; Roxin (1987), p. 349.

  43. 43.

    Engländer (2011), p. 514.

  44. 44.

    BGH decision from 14 August 1963 no. 2 StR 181/63 = BGHSt 19, 135, p. 139.

  45. 45.

    German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 61.

  46. 46.

    German Narcotic Law (Betäubungsmittelgesetz—BtMG) of 1 August 1981, in the version promulgated on 1 March 1994 (Federal Law Gazette, part I, p. 358), last amended by Article 2 of the Law of 10 June 2013 (federal Law Gazette, part I, p. 1497). Available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/btmg_1981/gesamt.pdf (accessed 18 June 2013).

  47. 47.

    Oduncu and Sahm (2010), p. 375.

  48. 48.

    Obviously, it must be taken into consideration that the physician generally has a duty to provide medical treatment to the patient. The illegal omission of medical treatment, despite a duty to act, remains a crime, according to Sections 13 and 211 et seq. Penal Code. Legal assistance in suicide can therefore generally only be provided by a physician if he does not have the duty to provide medical treatment. Such a duty does no longer exist when the physician is released by the patient, which is always in the patient’s competence; decision of the Higher Regional Court München (OLG München) from 31 July 1987 no. 1 Ws 23/87 = NJW 1987, 2940.

  49. 49.

    Musterberufsordnung für die in Deutschland tätigen Ärztinnen und Ärzte (MBO-Ä 1997) in der Fassung der Beschlüsse des 114. Deutschen Ärztetages 2011 in Kiel, available at http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/MBO_08_20111.pdf (accessed 16 August 2012).

  50. 50.

    Dreier (2007), p. 320; German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 64.

  51. 51.

    BGH decision from 20 May 2003 no. 5 StR 66/03 = NJW 2003, 2326, p. 2327.

  52. 52.

    German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 64.

  53. 53.

    German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 49.

  54. 54.

    German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 49.

  55. 55.

    German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 50.

  56. 56.

    Decision of the German Constitutional Court (BVerfG) from 16 January 1957 no. 1 BvR 253/56 = BVerfGE 6, 32; BVerfG decision from 19 October 1971 no. 1 BvR 387/65 = BVerfGE 32, 98.

  57. 57.

    German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 52.

  58. 58.

    German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 52.

  59. 59.

    Hufen (2005), p. 83.

  60. 60.

    Hufen (2005), p. 82.

  61. 61.

    Spickhoff (2011), Art. 1 GG, recital 13.

  62. 62.

    Hufen (2005), p. 83.

  63. 63.

    BVerfG decision from 25 February 1975 no. 1 BvF 1/74 = BVerfGE 39, 1, p. 42; BVerfG decision from 16 October 1977 no. 1 BvQ 5/77 = BVerfGE 46, 160, p. 164.

  64. 64.

    Hufen (2005), p. 86.

  65. 65.

    Hufen (2005), p. 86.

  66. 66.

    Hufen (2001), p. 852.

  67. 67.

    BVerfG decision from 1 August 1978 no. 2 BvR 123/76 = BVerfGE 49, 15, p. 23.

  68. 68.

    German National Ethics Council (2006), p. 52.

  69. 69.

    Dreier (2006), Art. 2 I, recital 70; BVerfG decision from 12 September 1994 no. 2 BvR 291/94 = NJW 1995, 1477.

  70. 70.

    Dreier (2006), Art. 2 I, recital 23.

  71. 71.

    Spickhoff (2011), Art. 2 GG, recital 13 argues for Article 2 (2) referencing a decision of the Constitutional Court: BVerfG decision from 22 September 1993 no. 2 BvR 1732/93 = BVerfGE 89, 120, p. 130; Knopp (2003), p. 384 argues for Article 2 (1); others argue in favor of the general right of personality, derived from Articles 1 (1) and 2 (1): Damm (1998), p. 926, Taupitz (2000), p. A 12; Maunz and Dürig (2012), Art. 2, recital 204, argues in favor of the general right of personality in combination with Article 2 (2).

  72. 72.

    Hufen (2001), p. 851.

  73. 73.

    BVerfG decision from 25 July 1979 no. 2 BvR 878/74 = BVerfGE 52, 131, p. 168, 173.

  74. 74.

    Spickhoff (2011), Art. 2GG, recital 12.

  75. 75.

    Taupitz (2000), p. A12.

  76. 76.

    BVerfG decision from 23 March 1998 no. 2 BvR 2270/96 = NJW 1998, 1774, p. 1775.

  77. 77.

    Hufen (2001), p. 851.

  78. 78.

    BGH decision from 8 May 1991 no. 3 StR 467/90 = BGHSt 37, 376.

  79. 79.

    Maunz and Dürig (2012), Art. 2, recital 205.

  80. 80.

    Knopp (2003), p. 386.

  81. 81.

    Maunz and Dürig (2012), Art. 1 I, recital 89.

  82. 82.

    Knopp (2003), p. 384; Sachs (2011), Art. 2, recital 211.

  83. 83.

    Maunz and Dürig (2012), Art. 2 II 1, recital 47.

  84. 84.

    Taupitz (2000), p. A13.

  85. 85.

    Taupitz (2000), p. A13.

  86. 86.

    Taupitz (2000), p. A13.

  87. 87.

    Hufen (2001), p. 854.

  88. 88.

    Hufen (2001), p. 854.

  89. 89.

    Hufen (2001), p. 854.

  90. 90.

    Decision of the Supreme Court of the German Reich (Reichsgericht) from 31 May 1894 = RGSt 25, 375.

  91. 91.

    Constant jurisprudence: BGH decision from 9 December 1958 no. VI ZR 203/57 = NJW 1959, 811, p. 812; BGH decision from 07 February 1984 no. VI ZR 188/82 = BGHZ 90, 96, p. 99; BGH decision from 14 March 2006 no. VI ZR 279/04 = BGHZ 166, 336, p. 339.

  92. 92.

    BVerfG decision from 25 July 1979 no. 2 BvR 878/74 = BVerfGE 52, 131; BGH decision from 5 July 2007 no. 4 StR 549/06 = MedR 2008, 158.

  93. 93.

    For more detailed information, see Salkić and Zwick (2012).

  94. 94.

    For the details, see the precedent contribution of J. Taupitz.

  95. 95.

    3rd Act Changing the Custodianship Law (3. Gesetz zur Änderung des Betreuungsrechts—3. BtÄndG) of 29 July 2009 entered into force on 1 September 2009 (Federal Law Gazette, part I, no. 48).

  96. 96.

    For a more detailed description, see Taupitz and Salkić (2011).

  97. 97.

    Precedent contribution of J. Taupitz; for further information: Beckmann (2009), p. 585; Taupitz and Salkić (2011), p. 331.

  98. 98.

    Salkić and Zwick (2012); Taupitz and Salkić (2011).

  99. 99.

    Taupitz and Salkić (2011), p. 336.

  100. 100.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963.

  101. 101.

    Furthermore, the living will does not have to be objectively reasonable, which means that the living will of a Jehova’s witness, in which a blood transfusion is rejected, is obligatory. So, the new law clearly states that euthanasia can be legally provided in any case when there is a valid living will. See Standl (2010); BVerfG decision from 2 August 2001 no. 1 BvR 618/93 = NJW 2002, 206.

  102. 102.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963.

  103. 103.

    LG Fulda decision from 30 April 2009 no. 16 Js 1/08—1 Ks = ZfL 2009, 97.

  104. 104.

    LG Fulda decision from 30 April 2009 no. 16 Js 1/08—1 Ks = ZfL 2009, 97, p. 107.

  105. 105.

    Gaede (2010), p. 2926; discussed by Verrel (2010), p. 675; negated by Höfling (2012), p. 462.

  106. 106.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963, p. 2965; Engländer (2011), p. 516.

  107. 107.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963, p. 2964; Engländer (2011), p. 517.

  108. 108.

    Albrecht (2011), p. 40; Ihrig (2011), p. 584.

  109. 109.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963, p. 2966.

  110. 110.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963, p. 2967.

  111. 111.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963, p. 2967.

  112. 112.

    Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch—BGB) of 18 August 1896, in the version promulgated on 2 January 2002 (Federal Law Gazette, part I, p. 42, 2909), last amended by Article 2 of the Law of 15 March 2012 (Federal Law Gazette 2012, part II, p. 178). Unofficial English translation available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/index.html (accessed 29 March 2012).

  113. 113.

    BGH decision from 10 November 2010 no. 2 StR 320/10 = NJW 2011, 161, p. 162.

  114. 114.

    See also Albrecht (2011), p. 41.

  115. 115.

    Alberts (2010), p. 430.

  116. 116.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963, p. 2967.

  117. 117.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963, p. 2967.

  118. 118.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963, p. 2967; Rissing-van Saan (2011), p. 551; similar Ihrig (2011), p. 584.

  119. 119.

    Alberts (2010), p. 430.

  120. 120.

    Gaede (2010), p. 2927.

  121. 121.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963, p. 2967.

  122. 122.

    Bosch (2010), p. 911; Brunhöber (2011), p. 404; Duttge (2011), p. 37; Gaede (2010), p. 2927.

  123. 123.

    BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963, p. 2968.

  124. 124.

    Engländer (2011), p. 519; Hirsch (2011), p. 39.

  125. 125.

    Rissing-van Saan (2011), p. 550.

  126. 126.

    Kubiciel (2010), p. 661.

  127. 127.

    Schneider (2011), p. 105.

  128. 128.

    For details, see the precedent contribution of J. Taupitz; Taupitz and Salkić (2011).

  129. 129.

    Engländer (2011), p. 519; Hirsch (2011), p. 39; Verrel (2010), p. 674.

  130. 130.

    Kubiciel (2010), p. 661.

  131. 131.

    BGH decision from 10 November 2010 no. 2 StR 320/10 = NJW 2011, 161.

  132. 132.

    BGH decision from 10 November 2010 no. 2 StR 320/10 = NJW 2011, 161, p. 161.

  133. 133.

    Ihrig (2011), p. 583.

  134. 134.

    BGH decision from 10 November 2010 no. 2 StR 320/10 = NJW 2011, 161, p. 162; Engländer (2011), p. 516.

  135. 135.

    BGH decision from 10 November 2010 no. 2 StR 320/10 = NJW 2011, 161, p. 162.

  136. 136.

    For example: Ihrig (2011), p. 584.

  137. 137.

    Musterberufsordnung für die in Deutschland tätigen Ärztinnen und Ärzte—MBO-Ä 1997—in der Fassung der Beschlüsse des 107. Deutschen Ärztetages 2004 in Bremen, available at http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/Mbopdf.pdf (accessed 16 August 2012).

  138. 138.

    Musterberufsordnung für die in Deutschland tätigen Ärztinnen und Ärzte—MBO-Ä 1997—in der Fassung der Beschlüsse des 114. Deutschen Ärztetages 2011 in Kiel, available at http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/MBO_08_20111.pdf (accessed 16 August 2012).

  139. 139.

    German Medical Association (2004).

  140. 140.

    German Medical Association (2011).

  141. 141.

    The following State Chambers adapted their Professional Codes for Physicians so that physician-assisted suicide is explicitly forbidden: Bremen, 02 March 2012, available at https://www.aekhb.de/data/mediapool/ae_re_rg_berufsordnung.pdf (accessed 11 August 2012); Hamburg, 11 May 2012, available at http://www.aerztekammer-hamburg.de/berufsrecht/Berufsordnung_idF_13022012.pdf (accessed 24 September 2013); Niedersachsen, 1 February 2013, available at https://www.aekn.de/assets/downloadcenter/files/Arzt-und-Recht/Berufsrecht/BO27_11_12.pdf (accessed 24 September 2013); Nordrhein, 1 May 2012, available at http://www.aekno.de/downloads/aekno/berufsordnung.pdf (accessed 11 August 2012); Sachsen, 23 November 2011, available at http://www.slaek.de/de/05/aufgaben/berufsor.pdf (accessed 24 September 2013).

  142. 142.

    For an overview see http://sterberecht.homepage.t-online.de/Suizidhilfe.htm (accessed 16 August 2012).

  143. 143.

    Bayern, 1 April 2012, available at http://www.blaek.de/pdf_rechtliches/haupt/BO_2_16.pdf (accessed 16 August 2012); Westfalen-Lippe, 26 November 2011, available at http://www.aekwl.de/fileadmin/rechtsabteilung/waeb0312_neue_berufsordnung_alles.pdf (accessed 16 August 2012): no explicit prohibition, but a compromise: “shall not” instead of “ may not”.

  144. 144.

    § 16 Berufsordnung für die Ärzte Bayerns, available at http://www.blaek.de/pdf_rechtliches/haupt/BO_2_16.pdf (accessed 16 August 2012).

  145. 145.

    Decision of the Administrative Court Berlin (VG Berlin) from 30 March 2012 no. VG 9 K 63.09.

  146. 146.

    VG Berlin decision from 30 March 2012 no. VG 9 K 63.09.

  147. 147.

    http://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/49743 (accessed 16 August 2012).

  148. 148.

    Tolmein (2012).

  149. 149.

    Tolmein (2012).

  150. 150.

    Proposal of the States Saarland, Thüringen and Hessen, 27 March 2006, Bundesrat Drucksache 230/06, available at http://www.bundesrat.de/cln_051/SharedDocs/Drucksachen/2006/0201-300/230-06,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/230-06.pdf (accessed 13 August 2012); proposal of the State Rheinland-Pfalz, 23 March 2010, Bundesrat Drucksache 149/10, available at http://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/Drucksachen/2010/0101-200/149-10,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/149-10.pdf (accessed 13 August 2012).

  151. 151.

    Draft Bill of the Ministry of Justice, 9 March 2012, available at http://docs.dpaq.de/1424-refe_18072012.pdf_sterbehilfe.pdf (accessed 16 August 2012).

  152. 152.

    Draft Bill of the Ministry of Justice, 9 March 2012, p. 4.

  153. 153.

    Draft Bill of the Ministry of Justice, 9 March 2012, p. 5.

  154. 154.

    URL: http://www.dignitate-deutschland.de/ (accessed 16 August 2012).

  155. 155.

    URL: http://www.sterbehilfedeutschland.de/ (accessed 16 August 2012).

  156. 156.

    Decision of the Administrative Court Hamburg (VG Hamburg) from 6 February 2009 no. 8 E 3301/08 = MedR 2009, 550.

  157. 157.

    Deutscher Notarverein (2012), p. 2.

  158. 158.

    Official information of the German Ministry of Justice: Strafbare und straflose Formen der Sterbehilfe nach geltendem Recht, 8 August 2012, available at http://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Kurzmeldungen/DE/2012/20120808_Strafbare_und_straflose_Formen_der_Sterbehilfe_nach_geltendem_Recht.html?nn=1356288 (accessed 14 August 2012).

  159. 159.

    Wir sind erschrocken, Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, 5 August 2012, Nr. 31, p. 2.

  160. 160.

    Duttge (2012), p. 2.

  161. 161.

    See, for example, Dignitas (2012), p. 1, where Montesquieu is cited: “Quand il n’est pas nécessaire de faire une loi, il est nécessaire de ne pas en faire.” (If it is not necessary to make a law, it is necessary not to make it.)

  162. 162.

    Dignitas (2012); Humanistischer Verband Deutschland (2012), p. 1.

  163. 163.

    Dignitas (2012), p. 6.

  164. 164.

    Compare the surveys conducted by DGHS (Deutsche Gesellschaft für humanes Sterben), available at http://www.dghs.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Dateien/PDF/Forsa-Umfrage_2012-w.pdf (accessed 24 September 2013).

  165. 165.

    German Medical Association (2012), p. 3.

  166. 166.

    Draft Bill of the Ministry of Justice, 9 March 2012, p. 10.

  167. 167.

    BGH decision from 13 December 1995 no. 2 StR 575/95 = NJW 1996, 1069.

  168. 168.

    German Medical Association (2012), p. 4; proposal of the State Rheinland-Pfalz, 23 March 2010, Bundesrat Drucksache 149/10, p. 5, available at http://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/Drucksachen/2010/0101-200/149-10,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/149-10.pdf (accessed 13 August 2012).

  169. 169.

    Evangelische Kirche Deutschland (2008), p. 32.

  170. 170.

    German National Ethics Council (2006); Schöch et al. (2005), p. 553; Verrel (2006), with further references.

References

  • Alberts H (2010) BGH: Rechtfertigung von Sterbehilfe durch Behandlungsabbruch. FamFR 2(18):430–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht A (2011) Behandlungsabbruch und Selbstbestimmungsrecht. DNotZ 106(1):34–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger HG, Roth H (eds) (2012) Beck’scher Online-Kommentar BGB, 27th edn. Munich, Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann R (2009) Patientenverfügungen: Entscheidungswege nach der gesetzlichen Regelung. MedR 27(19):5852–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Borasio GD (2012a) Ernährung und Flüssigkeit am Lebensende aus palliativmedizinischer Sicht. In: Bormann F-J, Borasio GD (eds) Sterben. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 150–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Borasio GD (2012b) Über das Sterben. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch N (2010) Rechtfertigung von Sterbehilfe. JA 12:908–911

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunhöber B (2011) Sterbehilfe aus strafrechtlicher und rechtsphilosophischer Sicht. JuS 5:401–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Czerner F (2005) Das Abstellen des Respirators an der Schnittstelle zwischen Tun und Unterlassen bei der Sterbehilfe. JR 3:94–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Czerner F (2004) Das Euthanasie-Tabu – Vom Sterbehilfe-Diskurs zur Novellierung des § 216 StGB. Humanitas-Verlag, Dortmund

    Google Scholar 

  • Damm R (1998) Persönlichkeitsschutz und medizintechnische Entwicklung. JZ 53(19):926–937

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch E, Spickhoff A (2008) Medizinrecht: Arztrecht, Arzneimittelrecht, Medizinprodukterecht und Transfusionsrecht, 6th edn. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutscher Notarverein (2012) Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Strafbarkeit der gewerbsmäßigen Förderung der Selbsttötung. Berlin. http://www.dnotv.de/_files/Dokumente/Stellungnahmen/StellungnahmeStGB.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2012

  • Dignitas (2012) Stellungnahme zum Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zur Strafbarkeit der gewerbsmäßigen Förderung der Selbsttötung. Hanover. http://www.sterbehilfedeutschland.de/sbgl/files/PDF/2012-05-25_DIGNITAS_Stellungnahme.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2012

  • Dreier H (2007) Grenzen des Tötungsverbotes – Teil 2. JZ 62(7):317–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreier H (2006) Grundgesetz Kommentar, 2nd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Duttge G (2006) Einseitige (“objektive”) Begrenzung ärztlicher Lebenserhaltung? NStZ 26(9):479–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Duttge G (2011) Sterbehilfe durch Unterlassen (Behandlungsabbruch). MedR 29:32–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duttge G (2012) Pressemitteilung zum Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Änderung des Strafgesetzbuches – Strafbarkeit der Werbung für Suizidbeihilfe v. 23.03.2010 (BR-Drucks. 149/10), 21 May 2012. http://www.uni-goettingen.de/de/154370.html. Accessed 16 Aug 2012

  • Engländer A (2011) Von der passiven Sterbehilfe zum Behandlungsabbruch. JZ 66(10):513–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Enquete-Kommission “Recht und Ethik der modernen Medizin” (2002) Schlussbericht. Berlin. Bundestag Drucksache 14/9020. http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/14/090/1409020.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2012

  • Evangelische Kirche Deutschland (2008) Wenn Menschen sterben wollen. Hanover. http://www.ekd.de/download/ekd_texte_97.pdf. Accessed 16 Aug 2012

  • Gaede K (2010) Durchbruch ohne Dammbruch – Rechtssichere Neuvermessung der Grenzen strafloser Sterbehilfe. NJW 63(40):2925–2928

    Google Scholar 

  • German Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) (2004) Grundsätze der Bundesärztekammer zur ärztlichen Sterbebegleitung. Berlin. DÄBl 101(19):1219–1219

    Google Scholar 

  • German Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) (2011) Grundsätze der Bundesärztekammer zur ärztlichen Sterbebegleitung. Berlin. DÄBl 108(7):346–348. http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/Sterbebegleitung_17022011.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2012

  • German Medical Association (Bundesärztekammer) (2012) Stellungnahme der Bundesärztekammer. Berlin. http://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/StellBAeK_gewerbsmaessige_Foerderung_Selbsttoetung_31052012.pdf. Accessed 14 Aug 2012

  • German National Ethics Council (Nationaler Ethikrat) (2006) Self-determination and care at the end of life, Opinion. Berlin. http://www.ethikrat.org/files/Opinion_end-of-life_care.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2013

  • Herzberg R (1996) Sterbehilfe als gerechtfertigte Tötung im Notstand? NJW 49(46):3043–3049

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch J (2011) Anmerkung. JR 1:32–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Höfling W (2012) Die Entwicklung des sogenannten Sterbehilferechts in der (höchstrichterlichen) Judikatur. In: Bormann F-J, Borasio GD (eds) Sterben. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 444–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufen F (2005) In dubio pro dignitate. In: Thiele F (ed) Aktive und Passive Sterbehilfe. Fink, Munich, pp 79–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Hufen F (2001) In dubio pro dignitate. NJW 54(12):849–857

    Google Scholar 

  • Humanistischer Verband Deutschland (2012) Stellungnahme des Humanistischen Verbandes Deutschland. Berlin. http://www.humanismus.de/aktuelles/selbstbestimmung-bei-beendigung-lebens. Accessed 14 Aug 2012

  • Ihrig T (2011) Leitlinien zur Ermittlung und Durchführung des Patientenwillens. DNotZ 106(8):583–589

    Google Scholar 

  • Jähnke B, Laufhütte H, Odersky W (eds) (2005) Strafgesetzbuch – Leipziger Kommentar, 11th edn. Berlin, De Gruyter

    Google Scholar 

  • Knopp L (2003) Aktive Sterbehilfe – Europäische Entwicklungen und “Selbstbestimmungsrecht” des Patienten aus verfassungsrechtlicher Sicht. MedR 21:379–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krey V, Heinrich M (eds) (2008) Strafrecht Besonderer Teil, 14th edn. Stuttgart, Kohlhammer

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubiciel M (2010) Entscheidungsbesprechung - Zur Strafbarkeit des Abbruchs künstlicher Ernährung. ZJS 3(5):656–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühl K, Lackner K (2011) Strafgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 27th edn. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusch R (2007) In Würde sterben – nur im Ausland? NStZ 27(8):436–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusch R (2006) Tabu Sterbehilfe. NJW 59(5):261–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutzer K (2007) Patientenautonomie und Strafrecht – aktive und passive Sterbehilfe. FÜR 13(3):59–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Laufs A, Kern B (eds) (2010) Handbuch des Arztrechts, 4th edn. Munich, Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Maunz T, Dürig G (eds) (2012) Grundgesetz Kommentar, 65th edn. Munich, Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Oduncu F, Sahm S (2010) Doctor-cared dying instead of physician-assisted suicide: a perspective from Germany. Med Health Care Philos 13(4):371–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto H (1986) Recht auf den eigenen Tod? Gutachten D für den 56. Deutschen Juristentag 1986. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissing-van Saan R (2011) Strafrechtliche Aspekte der aktiven Sterbehilfe. ZIS 6(6):544–551

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxin C (1969) An der Grenze von Begehung und Unterlassung. In: Bockelmann P (ed) Festschrift für Karl Engisch zum 70. Geburtstag. Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, pp 380–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxin C (1987) Die Sterbehilfe im Spannungsfeld von Suizidteilnehme, erlaubtem Behandlungsabbruch und Tötung auf Verlangen. NStZ 7(8):345–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxin C (1999) Zur strafrechtlichen Beurteilung der Sterbehilfe. RECPC 01-10. http://criminet.ugr.es/recpc/recpc_01-10vo.html. Accessed 29 Mar 2012

  • Sachs M (ed) (2011) Grundgesetz: Kommentar, 6th edn. Munich, Beck

    Google Scholar 

  • Salkić A, Zwick A (2012) Acronyms of Dying versus Patient Autonomy. Eur J Health Law 19(3):289–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayid M (1983) Euthanasia: a comparison of the criminal laws of Germany, Switzerland and the United States. Boston Coll Int Comp Law Rev 6(2):533–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Schicketanz S, Raz A, Shalev C (2010) The cultural context of patient’s autonomy and doctor’s duty: passive euthanasia and advance directives in Germany and Israel. Med Health Care Philos 13(4):363–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider H (2011) Die Bedeutung der Patientenverfügung im Strafrecht – Auswirkungen des Urteils des 2. Strafsenats des BGH vom 25.6.2010 auf die notarielle Beratung bei Patientenverfügungen. MittBayNot (2):102–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Schöch H, Verrel T et al (2005) Alternativ-Entwurf Sterbebegleitung. GA, 553-586. http://www.alternativentwurf.de/media/ae-pdf/StB.pdf. Accessed 29 Mar 2012

  • Schreiber HL (2006) Das ungelöste Problem der Sterbehilfe – Zu den neuen Entwürfen und Vorschlägen. NStZ 26(9):473–479

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroth U (2006) Sterbehilfe als strafrechtliches Problem. GA 549–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulze R (ed) (2012) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: Handkommentar, 7th edn. Baden-Baden, Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Spickhoff A (ed) (2011) Medizinrecht. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Standl T (2010) Glaube oder Leben? Der Anaesthesist 59(4):289–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taupitz J, Salkić A (2011) Advance directives and legality of Euthanasia under German law. In: Negri S (ed) Self-Determination. Dignity and End-of-Life Care. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 331–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Taupitz J (2000) Empfehlen sich zivilrechtliche Regelungen zur Absicherung der Patientenautonomie am Ende des Lebens? Gutachten A zum 63. Deutschen Juristentag Leipzig 2000. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolmein O (2012) Todes-Cocktail – gerichtlich mehr geschüttelt als gerührt: Assistierter Suizid und Ethos der Ärzte, FAZ from 5 April 2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Tröndle H (1987) Warum ist die Sterbehilfe ein rechtliches Problem? ZStW 99(1):25–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verrel T (2010) Ein Grundsatzurteil? – Jedenfalls bitter nötig! NStZ 30(12):671–676

    Google Scholar 

  • Verrel T (2006) Patientenautonomie und Strafrecht bei der Sterbebegleitung, Gutachten C für den 66. Deutschen Juristentag Stuttgart 2006. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Verrel T (1996) Selbstbestimmungsrecht contra Lebensschutz. JZ 51(5):224–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner C (2005) Schaffung eines Rechtsrahmens im Spannungsverhältnis Lebenserhaltungspflicht und Selbstbestimmungsrecht. ZRP 38(2):63–63

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for German, European and International Medical Law, Public Health Law and Bioethics of the Universities of Heidelberg and Mannheim (IMGB), Mannheim, Germany

    Anna Zwick

Authors
  1. Anna Zwick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Zwick .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Sciences School of Law, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Salerno, Italy

    Stefania Negri

  2. IMGB, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Jochen Taupitz

  3. IMBG, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Amina Salkić

  4. IMGB, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Anna Zwick

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zwick, A. (2013). The German Law on Euthanasia: The Legal Basics and the Actual Debate. In: Negri, S., Taupitz, J., Salkić, A., Zwick, A. (eds) Advance Care Decision Making in Germany and Italy. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Deutsches, Europäisches und Internationales Medizinrecht, Gesundheitsrecht und Bioethik der Universitäten Heidelberg und Mannheim, vol 41. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40555-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation