“Where is the difference from euthanasia?”

Doctors President Frank Ulrich Montgomery speaks vehemently against the relaxation of the ban on commercial euthanasia, after the Federal constitutional court has negotiated in the first meetings about the scheme. If you allow physician-assisted suicide will lead directly to a “killing on Request”, he told the “daily mirror”.

“If we should die operate help as Doctors, we would have secured it quality and according to all the principles of good medical practice,” said the doctors President. “That would mean: die willing the poison would be injected via a venous access. Where is then the difference from euthanasia?”

“Because of the hazards invoked, do not exist”

The claim that palliative care physicians were by the law risk, the administration of pain to make drugs a criminal offence, was “nonsense,” said Montgomery. “Because of the hazards invoked, which is not present.” The scheme would be detrimental to organizations, “financed thereby or the satisfaction of it, to help other people when you Die”.

Seriously ill people, Doctors, and professional suicide helpers have submitted in the Karlsruhe constitutional complaint against section 217 of the penal code, which since the end of 2015, the business-like promotion of suicide, under penalty. Previously, it was for severely ill patients is possible to commit about using a euthanasia Association suicide. The organization got the lethal substances, the Patient had to take himself, or at least the button for an automatic syringe.

The Bundestag wanted to prevent with the new criminal offence, that assisted Suicide clubs such as euthanasia Germany or Dignitas of Switzerland to expand their offerings for paying members. The term “business” includes not only commercial services but also a repeated free-of-charge support.

The Federal constitutional court: suicide as a fundamental right

After the negotiations of the Federal constitutional court in April, much points to the fact that the constitutional court will overturn the strict euthanasia ban. Accordingly, it is in a suicide a fundamental right, that could outweigh the concerns. Presumably, the judge will suggest the policy, to render assistance to suicide dependent on someone in-depth advice, or that a panel of experts has reviewed the death consent.

Opponents of euthanasia cite as arguments that the will of the people with a desire to Die is often marred by mental illness, and that especially in older people, the attitude could be to want anyone to be a burden to the risk that members could build up pressure.

The constitutional court announced the decision, according to experience, a few months after the trial. A judgment is expected this year.