Suppr超能文献

[从法律和伦理角度看自杀与协助自杀]

[Suicide and assisted suicide from a legal and ethical perspective].

作者信息

Henking Tanja

机构信息

Hochschule für angewandte Wissenschaften Würzburg-Schweinfurt, Münzstr. 12, 97070, Würzburg, Deutschland.

出版信息

Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2022 Jan;65(1):67-73. doi: 10.1007/s00103-021-03469-9. Epub 2021 Dec 17.

Abstract

In 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court declared the ban on assisted suicide unconstitutional and invalid. The court derived a right to self-determined dying from the general right of personality. This right also includes the freedom to take one's own life and to seek help from third parties for this purpose and to make use of help if it is offered. In the meantime, there are several proposals for regulations and draft laws that pursue different concepts of a possible future regulation of assisted suicide. However, from the perspective of criminal law, the search for a new regulation should always be preceded by the question of the necessity of a new regulation. A new regulation must not be limited to certain groups of persons, such as persons with incurable, terminal illnesses, because otherwise the suicide motive would be assessed. This brings with it the particular challenge of finding a regulation that covers the different problem and need situations without assessing the suicide motive and also takes into account that the autonomy of the individual can be endangered in different ways.The article takes its starting point in the right to suicide, sheds light on different concepts, and discusses their advantages and disadvantages without explicitly highlighting individual legislative proposals. This is intended to enrich the further debate with individual aspects. At the same time, it advocates legislative restraint.

摘要

2020年,联邦宪法法院宣布禁止协助自杀的规定违宪且无效。该法院从一般人格权中推导出自主决定死亡的权利。这项权利还包括自杀的自由、为此向第三方寻求帮助的自由以及在获得帮助时加以利用的自由。与此同时,有几项关于监管的提案和法律草案,它们追求不同的未来协助自杀监管概念。然而,从刑法的角度来看,在寻求新的监管措施之前,始终应该先考虑新监管措施的必要性问题。新的监管措施不得仅限于某些人群,比如患有不治之症、晚期疾病的人,否则就会对自杀动机进行评估。这带来了一个特殊的挑战,即要找到一种监管措施,既能涵盖不同的问题和需求情况,又不对自杀动机进行评估,同时还要考虑到个人的自主权可能会以不同方式受到威胁。本文从自杀权出发,阐述不同的概念,并讨论它们的优缺点,而不明确突出个别立法提案。这样做旨在以个别方面丰富进一步的辩论。同时,本文主张立法克制。

相似文献

1
[Suicide and assisted suicide from a legal and ethical perspective].[从法律和伦理角度看自杀与协助自杀]
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2022 Jan;65(1):67-73. doi: 10.1007/s00103-021-03469-9. Epub 2021 Dec 17.
3
[Medical assistence to die, and law.].[医疗协助死亡与法律。]
Recenti Prog Med. 2019 Oct;110(10):462-472. doi: 10.1701/3246.32161.
5
[The right to die and assisted suicide: Review and critical analysis].[死亡权利与协助自杀:综述与批判性分析]
Encephale. 2022 Apr;48(2):196-205. doi: 10.1016/j.encep.2021.04.013. Epub 2021 Dec 11.
6
[Suicide prevention in the context of assisted suicide].[协助自杀背景下的自杀预防]
Nervenarzt. 2022 Nov;93(11):1112-1124. doi: 10.1007/s00115-022-01382-3. Epub 2022 Sep 19.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
2
[End-of-life practices of physicians in Germany].[德国医生的临终医疗行为]
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2015 Jan;140(1):e1-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1387410. Epub 2014 Nov 30.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验