Share:
Judgment Rejection of active euthanasia does not speak against nutritional termination
The courts must take seriously the death wishes stated in a living will. With one on Friday, March 24th. In 2017, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe opposed the attempt to interpret the opposite in the statement (Ref .: XII ZB 604/15). Thus it can not be deduced from a rejection of active euthanasia by a Catholic, she would not want a break in the artificial diet. In addition, if necessary, the husband must accept the death wish of his wife.
(Image: Robert Kneschke / fotolia.com) In this case, it is about a now 76 years old woman from Bavaria. After a stroke in 2008 she had a temporary cardiac arrest. Since then she has been in a vegetative state. She is artificially nourished and supplied with fluid via a nasogastric tube.
In a living will, written in 1998, the woman refused life-prolonging measures when "there is no prospect of regaining consciousness." To alleviate pain, she may also accept a shortening of her life. "I decline active euthanasia. I ask for human and pastoral accompaniment, "it says further in the order.
In the same document, she named her son a "confidant" to enforce her will. The District Court of Freising named him and the husband of the wife as a caregiver.
In agreement with his mother's doctor since 2014, the son has advocated stopping the artificial diet and hydration. This corresponds to the living will and the will of the mother. On the other hand, the husband locks himself up.
Based on various alleged evidence rejected the district court Freising and also the district court Landshut the request of the son. The district court referred in particular to the refusal of active euthanasia. In addition, the woman was a practicing Catholic. From this, the district court concluded on a "value system", according to which the woman also rejects the termination of artificial nutrition.
But according to the Karlsruhe ruling, the courts can not simply read things into a living will in such a way. In numerous individual points, the BGH rejected the argument of the district court as incorrect.
Thus, a break in the artificial diet is no euthanasia - and even if this was not true in 1998 at that time. The Catholic faith alone, however, does not permit such conclusions, especially since none of the witnesses ever spoke to the woman about concrete religious content.
The BGH also did not accept the argument that the woman wanted treatment as pain-relieving as possible, but that stopping the diet could lead to pain. This can be countered by a palliative medical treatment, to which the woman herself pointed.
Finally, the desire for home care does not prevent a termination of the artificial diet, just because this requires the transfer to a palliative care. The woman in no way made her wish to die dependent on home care.
"A consideration of the will of the husband is only considered, if this would have presumably influenced the will of those affected," it says further in the Karlsruhe judgment. Here, the woman has just not named her husband, but only her son as a "confidant". Obviously, she had assumed that the son would understand her will better and would implement it better than her husband.
After all, the BGH assumes a woman's will to die if "there is no prospect of regaining consciousness". According to the decision of 8 February 2017, which has now been published in writing, the district court is now to consider this. If so, a judicial approval for the end of the artificial diet is not necessary. Otherwise, the district court would have to explore the suspected will of the patient. Referring to two coma patients in her circle of acquaintances, she had repeatedly stated before her stroke that she did not want to be kept alive. mwo / fle