自我用药还是医生用药?未来德国协助临终者立法的范围。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q1 LAW Medical Law Review Pub Date : 2023-02-27 DOI:10.1093/medlaw/fwac034
Kerstin Braun
{"title":"自我用药还是医生用药?未来德国协助临终者立法的范围。","authors":"Kerstin Braun","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwac034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"141-157"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"SELF-ADMINISTRATION OR PRACTITIONER ADMINISTRATION? THE SCOPE OF FUTURE GERMAN ASSISTED DYING LEGISLATION.\",\"authors\":\"Kerstin Braun\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/medlaw/fwac034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"141-157\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwac034\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwac034","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2020年,德国联邦宪法法院(German Federal Constitutional Court)宣布2015年的一项刑法违宪并无效,该法对反复出现的自杀援助进行处罚,并要求存在一种自我决定死亡的权利,包括在可能的情况下使用自杀服务。由于随后的立法不作为,目前在德国没有为弱势群体提供保护的整体协助死亡立法。有人呼吁在这个领域进行法律改革。本文设想了德国未来辅助死亡框架的可能范围。为此,报告侧重于给药方法,并分析这种框架是否应限于允许有资格的人自行给医生开的相关致命药物,或者医生是否应能够给病人开相关致命药物,以及在何种程度上给病人开相关致命药物。这是比较分析,同时也考虑到德国宪法法院在其2020年判决中对未来协助死亡立法的要求作出的任何规定。文章的结论是,在德国,允许在自我管理和执业管理之间自由选择的协助死亡框架最符合宪法法院提供的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
SELF-ADMINISTRATION OR PRACTITIONER ADMINISTRATION? THE SCOPE OF FUTURE GERMAN ASSISTED DYING LEGISLATION.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Law Review
Medical Law Review MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Law Review is established as an authoritative source of reference for academics, lawyers, legal and medical practitioners, law students, and anyone interested in healthcare and the law. The journal presents articles of international interest which provide thorough analyses and comment on the wide range of topical issues that are fundamental to this expanding area of law. In addition, commentary sections provide in depth explorations of topical aspects of the field.
期刊最新文献
Towards a rights-based approach for disabled women's access to abortion. Addressing the consequences of the corporatization of reproductive medicine. Guy's and St Thomas'-v-Knight [2021] EWHC 25: Dignity in English law. Donor conception, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, choices, and procedural justice: an argument for reform of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Anticipatory declarations in obstetric care: a relational and spatial examination of patient empowerment, institutional impacts and temporal challenges.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1