The Constitutional Court (VfGH) held another hearing on the subject of euthanasia on Thursday. An association and four people, including two seriously ill people and a doctor, consider the Dying Directive Act and provisions of the Criminal Code, amended in 2022, on “assistance in suicide” to be unconstitutional. Among other things, the restriction of the admissibility of assisted suicide to terminally ill people is not objectively justified and the hurdles for accessing it are too high.
This was not the first time that the issue had been on the court’s agenda. In December 2020, the Constitutional Court had repealed provisions of the Criminal Code relating to assisting suicide as unconstitutional, following an application by the same two seriously ill patients, among others. The black-green government responded to this with the Dying Dispositions Act (StVfG).
Anyone who wants to end their own life can therefore make a death wish under certain conditions: the person wishing to die must be suffering from an incurable, fatal illness or a serious, permanent illness with persistent symptoms. The consequences of such an illness must have a permanent impact on the person’s entire lifestyle and the illness must result in a state of suffering that cannot be avoided in any other way.
A dying directive (valid for one year) can only be drawn up in writing by a notary or an employee of a patient representative. Before this, two doctors must provide information, who independently confirm that the person wishing to die is capable of making decisions and has made a free and self-determined decision. At the same time as the Dying Directive Act was introduced, the criminal prohibition of assisting in suicide was also revised (criminal offense of “assisting in suicide”). Anyone who helps another person to kill themselves will continue to be punished with a prison sentence of up to five years, unless the other person is suffering from a serious illness and has been given appropriate medical information.
However, the applicants also consider these regulations to be unconstitutional. For example, the restriction of assisted suicide to people who suffer from an incurable, fatal illness or a serious, permanent illness with persistent symptoms is not objectively justified. The reasons for suicide should not make a difference; what is important is that the decision is made on the basis of free self-determination. In addition, there is not enough legal definition of what constitutes a “serious” or “incurable” illness.
Furthermore, the provision of Paragraph 78 of the Criminal Code makes it impossible to end one’s life at the desired (latest possible) time with dignity and self-determination, without bureaucratic hurdles, in the circle of relatives. Even accompanying or assisting a person wishing to die on their journey to a state in which active euthanasia is permitted would expose a relative to the risk of criminal prosecution. Finally, those people who cannot afford to draw up a dying directive and those who, due to their physical condition, can no longer take a lethal drug themselves would also be discriminated against.
For the lawyer of one applicant, Wolfram Proksch, it is not acceptable for people who want to die to be dependent on at least four other people – namely two doctors willing to certify, a notary and someone else who ultimately provides the actual physical help. A psychologist/psychiatrist may also be involved. In comparison, only one doctor is needed for an abortion. Even the search for doctors willing to certify and the person to help is “a real ordeal,” said Proksch in the hearing. “The applicant does not want to have to justify his death,” argued Katharina Kessler, lawyer for another applicant.
Proksch also believes that data is lacking. For example, it is not clear how many people have not been able to complete assisted suicide due to the hurdles. The main problem for those affected is finding a doctor who is prepared to provide physical assistance with suicide. There is no list of such doctors, and the doctors who provide the certificates are not allowed to recommend them. In some states, medical associations prohibit their members from providing information about this on their websites. In some hospitals, there are also instructions that doctors are not allowed to offer this.
Government representatives argue that the latest Constitutional Court ruling leaves open the specific group of people who can seek the help of a third party to commit suicide. The legislature has some leeway here. The restriction to serious and long-term illnesses is also sufficiently defined, as the legislative materials make it clear that mild or moderate illnesses such as asthma should be excluded.
“The law is not intended to create bureaucratic hurdles, but to comply with the requirements of the Constitutional Court,” stressed the head of the Constitutional Service, Albert Posch. The regulations were also passed with four fifths of the votes in the National Council – members of the opposition also agreed, which reflects a social consensus.
Furthermore, he is not aware of any case in which a person was unable to find a doctor, said Posch. It may well be that the law was not necessarily well received at the beginning and that there were therefore teething problems. “However, teething problems cannot justify the law being unconstitutional.”
The Court will only take a decision on the application after internal deliberations. It will either be announced orally or notified in writing.
– What are the main arguments against the current euthanasia laws in Austria?
Table of Contents
Austrian Constitutional Court Reexamines Euthanasia Law Amid Claims of Unconstitutionality
The Austrian Constitutional Court (VfGH) recently held a hearing to reassess the country’s euthanasia law, specifically the Dying Directive Act (StVfG) and provisions of the Criminal Code, which were amended in 2022. The hearing was prompted by an association and four individuals, including two seriously ill people and a doctor, who argue that the current laws governing assisted suicide are unconstitutional.
Background: A Brief History of Euthanasia in Austria
In December 2020, the Constitutional Court ruled that provisions of the Criminal Code related to assisting suicide were unconstitutional, following an application by the same two seriously ill patients, among others. In response, the black-green government introduced the Dying Dispositions Act (StVfG). The new law allows individuals to make a “death wish” under certain conditions, including suffering from an incurable, fatal illness or a serious, permanent illness with persistent symptoms.
Current Laws and the Controversy
Under the current laws, a dying directive can only be drawn up in writing by a notary or an employee of a patient representative, and requires the approval of two independent doctors who confirm that the individual is capable of making decisions and has made a free and self-determined decision. The laws also stipulate that anyone who helps another person to kill themselves can be punished with a prison sentence of up to five years, unless the other person is suffering from a serious illness and has been given appropriate medical information.
Challenges to the Current Laws
The applicants argue that the current laws are unconstitutional for several reasons. Firstly, they claim that the restriction of assisted suicide to people who suffer from an incurable, fatal illness or a serious, permanent illness with persistent symptoms is not objectively justified. They argue that the reasons for suicide should not make a difference, and that what is important is that the decision is made on the basis of free self-determination.
Furthermore, the applicants argue that there is not enough legal definition of what constitutes a “serious” or “incurable” illness, and that the provision of Paragraph 78 of the Criminal Code makes it impossible to end one’s life at the desired (latest possible) time with dignity and self-determination, without bureaucratic hurdles, in the circle of relatives.
Bureaucratic Hurdles and Discrimination
Lawyers representing the applicants argue that the current laws create bureaucratic hurdles that make it difficult for individuals to access assisted suicide. For example, individuals who want to die require the approval of at least four other people, including two doctors, a notary, and someone else who provides the actual physical help. This, they argue, is a major obstacle for those who are seriously ill and wish to end their lives with dignity.
Additionally, the applicants argue that the laws discriminate against those who cannot afford to draw up a dying directive, and those who, due to their physical condition, can no longer take a lethal drug themselves.
Lack of Data and Support
Lawyers representing the applicants also argue that there is a lack of data on how many people have not been able to complete assisted suicide due to the hurdles, and that finding a doctor who is willing to provide physical assistance with suicide is a major challenge.
Government Response
Government representatives argue that the latest Constitutional Court ruling leaves open the specific group of people who can seek the help of a third party to commit suicide, and that the legislature has some leeway in this regard. They also argue that the restriction to serious and long-term illnesses is sufficiently defined, and that the laws are intended to comply with the requirements of the Constitutional Court.
Conclusion
The Austrian Constitutional Court’s hearing on euthanasia has raised important questions about the country’s laws governing assisted suicide. While the government argues that the laws are designed to protect individuals and ensure that assisted suicide is only carried out in extreme circumstances, the applicants argue that the laws create bureaucratic hurdles and discriminate against certain groups. As the court deliberates, one thing is clear: the issue of euthanasia is complex, controversial, and requires careful consideration of the rights and dignity of all individuals involved.
Keywords: euthanasia, assisted suicide, Austrian Constitutional Court, Dying Directive Act, Criminal Code, right to die, self-determination, bureaucratic hurdles, discrimination.
Meta Description: The Austrian Constitutional Court is reexamining the country’s euthanasia laws amid claims of unconstitutionality. Learn more about the controversy and the arguments for and against the current laws governing assisted suicide.
– What are the key arguments being presented by the association and individuals challenging euthanasia laws in Austria?
Constitutional Court Re-Examines Euthanasia Laws in Austria
The Constitutional Court (VfGH) in Austria held a hearing on Thursday to re-examine the country’s laws on euthanasia, specifically the Dying Directive Act and provisions of the Criminal Code related to “assistance in suicide”. The court is considering a challenge to the laws brought by an association and four individuals, including two seriously ill people and a doctor, who argue that the current regulations are unconstitutional.
Background of the Case
This is not the first time the Constitutional Court has addressed the issue of euthanasia. In December 2020, the court ruled that provisions of the Criminal Code related to assisting suicide were unconstitutional, following an application by the same two seriously ill patients, among others. In response, the government introduced the Dying Dispositions Act (StVfG) to regulate euthanasia.
Current Regulations
Under the current laws, individuals who wish to end their life can make a “death wish” under certain conditions. The person must be suffering from an incurable, fatal illness or a serious, permanent illness with persistent symptoms that have a permanent impact on their lifestyle and cause unbearable suffering. A dying directive can only be drawn up in writing by a notary or an employee of a patient representative, and must be accompanied by two doctors who confirm that the person is capable of making decisions and has made a free and self-determined decision.
Challenges to the Law
The applicants argue that the current regulations are unconstitutional because they restrict assisted suicide to people who suffer from an incurable, fatal illness or a serious, permanent illness with persistent symptoms. They argue that this restriction is not objectively justified, and that the reasons for suicide should not make a difference; what is important is that the decision is made on the basis of free self-determination. They also argue that the laws create bureaucratic hurdles that make it difficult for people to access assisted suicide, and that the prohibition on assisting in suicide puts relatives at risk of criminal prosecution.
Arguments from the Applicants’ Lawyers
Lawyers for the applicants argued that the laws are overly restrictive and create unnecessary barriers for individuals who wish to end their life with dignity and self-determination. They pointed out that the search for doctors willing to certify and provide physical assistance with suicide is often difficult, and that there is no list of doctors who are willing to provide this service. They also argued that the laws discriminate against people who cannot afford to draw up a dying directive and those who are physically unable to take a lethal drug themselves.
Government Response
Government representatives countered that the laws are designed to comply with the requirements of the Constitutional Court and are intended to protect vulnerable individuals from abuse. They argued that the restriction to serious and long-term illnesses is sufficiently defined and is based on a social consensus, as evidenced by the fact that the laws were passed with a significant majority in the National Council.
Next Steps
The Constitutional Court will now consider the arguments presented by both sides and make a ruling on the constitutionality of the laws. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the rights of individuals in Austria to make decisions about their own lives and deaths.
Keyword Tags
Euthanasia
Assisted suicide
Constitutional Court
Austria
Dying Directive Act
Criminal Code
Self-determination
Human rights
* End-of-life care
Meta Description
The Constitutional Court in Austria is re-examining the country’s laws on euthanasia, following a challenge from an association and four individuals. The court will consider whether the current regulations are unconstitutional and restrict an individual’s right to make decisions about their own life and death.
