VfGH questions the prohibition of assisted suicide

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. This could even apply if someone bought a ticket for “assisted suicide” in Switzerland for a relative, as Christian Pilnacek, head of the criminal law section, said at the hearing. But this question has not been tried.

That constitutional judges focus primarily on the second provision, that is, the prohibition of assisted suicide, in their deliberations, was clear from the beginning when the spokesperson responsible for the case, Christoph Herbst, spoke. The questions he asked related exclusively to this criminal provision.

SN / APA / HERBERT NEUBAUER

To this end, the applicants – including two seriously ill persons and a doctor – brought in a representative of the Swiss euthanasia association “Dignitas” to provide them with information. He argued that the suicide rate in Switzerland was declining, so he also dismissed misuse concerns raised by the government against liberalization.

However, in the course of the hearing, the plaintiffs had to admit that the number of suicides in Switzerland is lower than in Austria (1,049 compared to 1,224 in 2017). But just because the 1,009 “assisted suicide” cases are not included here. This means that in Switzerland there is “in general a doubling” of the suicide rate due to euthanasia, as highlighted by the head of the constitutional service at the Chancellery, Albert Posch.

Constitutional judge Herbst von Posch wanted to know exactly how the total ban on euthanasia was compatible with the free will of those affected. His statement that a suicide is irreversible was not immediately convincing, as evidenced by the investigation of the high judge, who noted that this also applies to other medical decisions.

The plaintiff’s attorney, Wolfram Proksch, had previously mentioned passive euthanasia as an example, for example, when a feeding tube is removed from a patient who can no longer eat on his own. It is not understandable why the delivery of a deadly drink is punished as “participation in suicide”, but removing the tube not as “kill on demand,” argued Proksch in favor of repeal of the criminal provision: “The person who is willing to die, he doesn’t remove the feeding tube himself. ” . “

The current legal situation was defended by the head of the criminal law section, Pilnacek. He sees a “fair balance” between the protection of life and the autonomy of those affected. Because they have the option of rejecting certain interventions through living wills and health care power of attorney. Also, the Physicians Act allows pain therapy for the dying even if it hastens death.

“We have enough opportunities to ensure a dignified death in our hospice units and other wards,” said government-appointed hospice specialist Herbert Watzke. For example, a patient with advanced disease may refuse antibiotics in the event of additional infection: “You can take this opportunity to leave life with dignity with our care.”

Nikola Göttling, herself suffering from multiple sclerosis and in a wheelchair, refused to accept this. “There are back doors, that’s correct,” she said. “All I have to do is get an infection, then drive to the hospital and refuse treatment.” But if her paralysis also affects her arms, she needs to be wrapped and fed. Therefore, she does not want a “back door”, but the opportunity to die “because my life is degrading”.

It is open what decision the highest judges will make. As President Christoph Grabenwarter said, negotiations will now continue internally.

Those: APA