• Hans-Ludwig Schreiber.
• Institut für Kriminalwissenschaften, Abt. für Arzt- und Arzneimittelrecht des Juristischen Seminars, Universität Göttingen. h-l.schreiber@jura.uni-goettingen.de
• Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2008 Jan 1;102(3):208-14.

AbstractDraft versions presented by the Federal Ministry of Justice and proposals submitted from the political parties represented in the German Bundestag as well as an alternative draft issued by criminal law teachers and a decision of the German Lawyers and Law Teachers Association (Deutscher Juristentag) all seek to achieve a legal regulation of euthanasia. Contrary to the regulation in the Netherlands, the prohibition of active direct euthanasia is largely maintained. The drafts suggest that the so-called passive euthanasia and the indirect euthanasia be regulated through provisions for the termination and/or limitation of life-sustaining measures and the permission for measures that alleviate pain and suffering regardless of the risk of bringing about death. The Federal Ministry of Justice (BMJ) and the draft versions of the Bundestag bring to the fore the introduction of an advance directive to be adopted as a tool for self-determination and treatment limitation. The advance directive alone lacks sufficient regulation though. It should be permitted, but is no more than a means of "transport". What is to be "transported" as the patient's will at the end of his or her life, however, requires regulation, too.

9 keywords...

hide…