Guidelines for Euthanasia: A Death with Dignity

It is a cross with euthanasia. While France has already legalized euthanasia, in Germany it is characterized by the ebb and flow of political interests. As early as the end of the 19th century, scientists in this country were discussing the question of the right to die and the associated responsibility of medicine. When the term “life unworthy of living” arose after the end of the First World War, the National Socialists quickly used it with their cruel machinery of extermination. This had nothing to do with euthanasia, but was the ideological murder of people who did not fit into the fascist worldview. Consequently, the Lawyers' Conference in 1947 demanded that “real euthanasia” should never be discussed again in Germany.

And even today, lawyers remain critical of the question of organized support in the event of suicide. Now the 75th German Lawyers' Conference in Erfurt spoke out against a complete deletion of the criminal law paragraph in question and instead called for “selective exceptions”. In addition, the lawyers gathered voted for a “procedural protection concept” with medical advice, information, assessments and a requirement for approval for euthanasia organizations. Only a separate end-of-life care law did not find a majority.

is a journalist and political scientist. Her father had been in a vegetative state for nine years when she chose euthanasia over medication for pneumonia.

Too bad. Since the groundbreaking Federal Constitutional Court ruling in 2020, the situation in Germany has been complicated for those affected, medical staff and relatives. Passive and now also indirect euthanasia are permitted. If it corresponds to the will of the person concerned, doctors are allowed to stop life-prolonging measures (passive). When caring for terminally ill people, pain-relieving medications may be administered, even if these can lead to death (indirectly).

The taz is an independent, left-wing and opinionated daily newspaper. We have been arguing in our comments, essays and debate texts since the taz was founded in 1979. We often cannot and do not want to agree on an opinion. That's why you'll find some completely opposing positions here - all part of the very broad left-wing spectrum of opinions.

After a change in the law in 2015, the “commercial promotion of suicide” was banned in order to discourage euthanasia associations. But in 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that this contradicted the personal rights enshrined in the Basic Law - in conjunction with human dignity. The free development of one's personality not only includes the freedom to take one's own life, but also to request the voluntary help of third parties. How else should seriously ill people exercise their right to suicide if not with medical support?

Since then, the number of professionally assisted suicides has been rising. Last year, the German Society for Humane Dying recorded a total of 898 professional suicide accompaniments. That is 275 more people than last year. The need is there and this is due, among other things, to the conditions of our healthcare system consisting of health insurance, research and medical care, which sometimes prolong life unnecessarily. The possibilities of medical progress are advancing, which is saving numerous lives. The dark side: Now more and more people end up in long-term, torturous and inhumane conditions at the end of their lives.

A 49-year-old intensive care doctor has just been acquitted by the Hanover regional court of the accusation of having “injected death” into three people. All three cases involved seriously ill and dying people whose suffering he did not want to prolong against their will. So he ended their suffering through indirect help. Like the 82-year-old from a dementia shared apartment who had previously agreed with her family doctor to stop all therapies. He gradually injected her with a high dose of fentanyl until she finally managed to die. He was nevertheless charged with murder, attempted murder and aggravated assault. And so the humane doctor spent half a year in custody for a total of three cases in which he acted humanely and according to the patient's wishes.

Because our healthcare system does not clearly regulate how we can die with dignity. Doctors repeatedly find themselves in gray areas and are at the mercy of the question: Must life be preserved at all costs or should the wishes of patients be followed? What sense does it make, for example, to burden seriously ill cancer patients with a few more painful days just to prolong their lives? The case of the Hanover doctor is just one of many. According to the German Brain Foundation, 7,000 people in Germany end up in a coma every day. The younger the people are, the higher the chances of recovery. From the age of 40 onwards, the chance of waking up without any permanent damage drops to almost zero. For people who are in a coma for longer than six months, the chance of ever waking up again is reduced to twelve percent.

Is it okay for people to lie in a coma for years only to die in the end, even though they spoke out against it? Despite the Federal Constitutional Court's ruling six years ago and various motions in parliament, the Bundestag has still not been able to come to a clear legal regulation on assisted suicide. This means that patients, relatives and medical staff remain in the dark, even though medical progress causes some conditions in the first place.

Instead, the federal government passed a health care reform this year that revolves around austerity measures. Let’s put the well-being of patients and humanity at the center! It is time for clear regulations on euthanasia in order to ensure human dignity even at the end of life. The doctor's defense team in Hanover is calling for an euthanasia law. Let us finally create a worthy legal framework before a right-wing radical majority drafts legal bases that we no longer want under any circumstances.