You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • The Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding assisted suicide: a template for pluralistic states?

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Original research
The Judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding assisted suicide: a template for pluralistic states?
  1. Urban Wiesing
  1. Institut für Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin, Eberhard Karls Universitat Tübingen, Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Professor Urban Wiesing, Institut für Ethik und Geschichte der Medizin, Eberhard Karls Universitat Tübingen, Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany; urban.wiesing{at}uni-tuebingen.de

Abstract

The article presents the judgment of the German Federal Constitutional Court from 26 February 2020 on assisted suicide. The statements regarding human dignity, human rights and the relationship between citizens and the state are examined. Furthermore, the consequences resulting from this interpretation of human dignity for states that are pluralistic and based on human rights will be laid out. The court’s judgment limits the power of parliaments and poses a challenge to many laws in states that see themselves as pluralistic, human rights-based states.

  • human dignity
  • autonomy
  • clinical ethics
  • suicide/assisted suicide

Data availability statement

There are no data in this work.

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107233

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    There are no data in this work.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors UW is the sole author of this paper.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.