[ad_1]
Euthanasia is a very controversial topic
© WHAT
The Constitutional Court (VfGH) dealt with the ban on euthanasia on Thursday. Both supporters and opponents of liberalization were questioned in a public hearing. The government representatives defended the legal situation in the negotiation. The plaintiffs rejected this and criticized in particular that those who were willing to die were offered “back doors” instead of assisted suicide.
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.
The government representatives and their informants defended the existing legal situation. “We have enough opportunities to guarantee a dignified death in our hospice units and other wards,” said hospice specialist Herbert Watzke.
Watzke explained that it is already possible to refuse treatment, for example to refuse antibiotics in case of an additional infectious disease. “Virtually all patients with advanced diseases are prone to infections. You can take this opportunity to leave life with dignity with our care, “said the doctor. And in the case of severe shortness of breath there is the option of “sedation therapy”.
Christian Pilnacek, head of the criminal law section of the Ministry of Justice, had previously referred to the possibility of a living will, a health care power of attorney and medical law. There (paragraph 49a) it is regulated that pain therapy can also be used in the dying if it accelerates death. In short, this provides “a fair balance between the interests of protecting life and those derived from Article 8 of the ECHR, that is, autonomy and the protection of the right to privacy.”
Niola Göttling, who suffers from multiple sclerosis and the person who provides information to applicants awaiting a liberalization from euthanasia, did not want 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 her legs are already paralyzed and if the paralysis also affects her arms for years to come, she will have to be wrapped and fed. Therefore, she does not want a “back door”, but the opportunity to die “because my life is degrading”.
The plaintiff’s attorney, Wolfram Proksch, did not accept the reference to advanced pain therapy. He criticized the fact that, according to the state of medicine, only two percent of the dying actually suffer pain. In fact, due to the medicine of two kinds, a quarter die of pain.
He had previously noted that criminal liability for “participation in suicide” had been created by austrofascism, for religious and moral reasons. With due respect for the beliefs of religious societies, such a moral assessment cannot give rise to criminal responsibility for those affected, criticized the lawyer.
Former SP politician Elisabeth Pittermann opposed this. She is not religious and she certainly does not believe in eternal life. But she grew up with the crimes of National Socialism and so there had to be an “inhibition to kill.” “It must be a principle that one should not kill.” This should especially apply to doctors, because there is a threat of massive abuse: “Who has more opportunity to kill without drawing attention than doctors”.
[ad_2]
