title: [Legal issues of physician-assisted euthanasia. Part III--Passive euthanasia, comparison of international legislation, conclusions for medical practice].
abstract: The generic term "passive euthanasia" includes different issues dealing with the omission, discontinuation or termination of life-sustaining or life-prolonging medical treatments. The debate around passive euthanasia focuses on the constitutional right of self-determination of every human being on the one hand and the constitutional mandate of the State to protect human life on the other. Issues of passive euthanasia always require a differentiated approach. Essentially, it comes down to the following: In Germany, the human right of self-determination includes the right to prohibit the performance of life-sustaining treatments, even if this leads to the death of the patient. A physician who does not take life-sustaining treatment measures because this is the free will expressed by the patient is not subject to prosecution. On the other hand, if the physician treats the patient against his will, this can be deemed a punishable act of bodily injury. The patient's will is decisive even if his concrete state of health does no longer allow him to freely express his will. In the Patient's Living Will Act of 2009, the German legislator clarified the juridical assessment of such constellations being of particular relevance in practice. A written living will of a person in which he requests to take or not to take certain medical treatment measures in case that he is no longer able to make the decision himself shall be binding for the people involved in the process of medical treatment. If there is no living will, the supposed will of the patient shall be relevant. In its judgment in the "Putz case", the German Federal Court of Justice ruled in 2010 that actions terminating a life-sustaining treatment that does not correspond to the patient's will must be limited to letting an already ongoing disease process run its course. In this context it is not important, however, whether treatment is discontinued by an active act or by omission. Under certain circumstances, the termination of life-sustaining measures can also be permitted if they are no longer medically indicated. Looking to other European countries and the USA it becomes evident that euthanasia is the subject of controversial discussion and interpretation not only in Germany.
authors.affiliation: Institut für Rechtsmedizin des Klinikums der Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt/Main.
authors.forename: Johannes
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Laux
authors.forename: Andreas
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Röbel
authors.forename: Markus
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Parzeller
mesh_terms: D024362:Advance Directive Adherence / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D003431:Cross-Cultural Comparison; D005060:Europe; D005066:Euthanasia, Passive / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D008020:Life Support Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016224:Living Wills; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D018447:Medical Futility / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D026684:Personal Autonomy; D017236:Suicide, Assisted / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States; D028761:Withholding Treatment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence