IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v33y2025i3pfwaf033..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the categorical denial of pentobarbital for assisted suicide a violation of the constitutional right to a self-determined death in Germany?

Author

Listed:
  • Kerstin Braun

Abstract

Aiding in suicide is no criminal offence under German law. In addition, a constitutional right to a self-determined death exists, including relying on third-party assistance, where offered. To exercise such a constitutional right, persons require access to effective lethal medication. Pentobarbital is a substance commonly used in jurisdictions allowing assisted dying. Yet, in Germany, the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, based on the Narcotic Drugs Act, categorically rejects pentobarbital licence applications with the consequence that pentobarbital is not available in Germany for assisted suicide purposes. Persons wanting to die must either rely on other, frequently less effective drugs or find a medical practitioner willing to set up an intravenous infusion with a lethal substance. This may prove difficult in practice. Several unsuccessful applicants have therefore challenged these licence rejections, but administrative courts have generally upheld the Federal Institute’s decisions. This article examines whether the section in the Narcotic Drugs Act, which in its current interpretation prevents access to pentobarbital, is constitutional. It analyses whether this restriction disproportionately limits the constitutional right to a self-determined death of licence applicants and concludes that, due to its severe impact on persons wishing to die, serious doubts arise regarding the section’s constitutionality.

Suggested Citation

  • Kerstin Braun, 2025. "Is the categorical denial of pentobarbital for assisted suicide a violation of the constitutional right to a self-determined death in Germany?," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 1-033..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:33:y:2025:i:3:p:fwaf033.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaf033
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:33:y:2025:i:3:p:fwaf033.. 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.