IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v31y2023i1p141-157..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-Administration Or Practitioner Administration? The Scope Of Future German Assisted Dying Legislation

Author

Listed:
  • Kerstin Braun

Abstract

In 2020, the German Federal Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional and void a 2015 criminal law penalising suicide assistance in a recurring fashion and called into existence a right to a self-determined death, including the use of suicide services, where available. Due to subsequent legislative inaction, no holistic assisted dying legislation offering protection for vulnerable individuals is currently in place in Germany. Calls have been made for law reform in this area. This article contemplates the possible scope of a future assisted dying framework in Germany. It does so by focusing on the method of administration and analyses whether such a framework should be limited to allowing eligible persons to self-administer relevant lethal medications, which have been prescribed to them by a medical practitioner or whether, and to what extent, practitioners should be able to administer relevant lethal substances to patients. This is comparatively analysed while also keeping in mind any stipulations made by the German Constitutional Court in its 2020 judgment on the requirements of future assisted dying legislation. The article concludes that an assisted dying framework allowing a free choice between self and practitioner administration in Germany best complies with the guidance provided by the Constitutional Court.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerstin Braun, 2023. "Self-Administration Or Practitioner Administration? The Scope Of Future German Assisted Dying Legislation," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 141-157.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:31:y:2023:i:1:p:141-157.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwac034
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:31:y:2023:i:1:p:141-157.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.