[Should the obligation to feed continue until death? Evaluation of the problem from the legal viewpoint].
In accordance with the nowadays prevailing opinion, the right of existence and the penal protection of human life in general subsist independently of the sense and value ascribed to them by a third. Correspondingly, the dying, the patient with an apallic syndrome and the neonate with grave neural defects are entitled to protection of life and basic nursing. To these belongs--among others--the right of nutrition. If a discerning patient refuses (artificial) nutrition no-one respecting his will can be considered criminally liable. If there is no such expression of intent, it is admissible to stop--if necessary step by step--the patient's artificial nutrition, because doing so represents help in the final stage of his life. This proceeding implies that the patient does not disagree with such a renunciation (permissible passive euthanasia). In the case of patients with apallic syndrome and neonates with grave neural defects who are--in the doctor's opinion--not in the dying phase, stopping (further) nutrition is permissible solely--and only in this case--if this does not constitute the main reason for the patient's death.
Donatsch
A
A
Rechtswissenschaftliches Seminar, Universität Zürich.
D005066:Euthanasia, Passive / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D010288:Parenteral Nutrition; D010344:Patient Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D013557:Switzerland; D013727:Terminal Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*
Gilt die Pflicht zu ernähren bis zum Tode? Beurteilung der Fragestellung aus strafrechtlicher Sicht.