[ad_1]
Both supporters and opponents of liberalization are questioned in a public hearing. Four applicants, including two seriously ill and a doctor, want to quash the criminal liability of “killing on demand” and “participating in suicide”. The ban is upheld by government officials.
Unlike Germany, Austria does not only punish “murder on demand”. Anyone who supports others in suicide must also wait six months to five years in prison. In the questions posed by the responsible speaker Christoph Herbst at the beginning, the judges focus mainly on the second provision, that is, the prohibition of “participating in suicide”. Therefore, “kill on demand” should not be at the center of public bargaining.
Judges want to know, among other things, if people who organize a trip to a foreign euthanasia organization for someone who is willing to die are also crimes. In addition, they question whether assistance in suicide should be evaluated differently from “induction” to suicide, which is also threatened with the same penalty. Judges also want to know how abuse can be avoided other than through a criminal prohibition.
- Video: VfGH questions the prohibition of assisted suicide:
The government raised the “potential for abuse” of a liberalized euthanasia scheme in its statement to the Constitutional Court against repeal. The government argues that the ban on active euthanasia serves to protect the lives of others and arises from the state’s duty to protect vulnerable people. It is represented in the proceedings, among others, by the head of the constitutional service of the Foreign Ministry, Albert Posch, as well as by the heads of the justice section Georg Kathrein and Christian Pilnacek.
On the other hand, the applicants see that the ban on euthanasia violates several provisions of basic rights, including the right to family life, freedom of religion and respect for human dignity. Two of the four complainants justify their request with serious and incurable diseases. Another applicant is a physician and argues that he is often faced with requests for assistance from patients in the event of suicide, but cannot comply without exposing himself to criminal and disciplinary consequences.
The Viennese specialist in palliative medicine Herbert Watzke and the doctor and former Vienna Councilor for Health, Elisabeth Pittermann, were interviewed as respondents.
By the way, the crimes now being challenged by the Constitutional Court often do not end up in court: Since 2012, Statistics Austria has only recorded two convictions for “involvement in suicide” and no convictions for “murder on demand”. One of the plaintiffs, however, points out that he himself had already been convicted of having supported his seriously ill wife in suicide.
Closed negotiation, without decision
After almost four hours, the Constitutional Court (VfGH) closed the hearing. As expected, there was no decision on Thursday. As President Christoph Grabenwarter said, the Court will continue its deliberations in the coming weeks and will then issue the decision in writing or orally.
