Germany's Federal Court of Justice overturned the conviction of a lawyer who advised an elderly comatose woman's family to cut off her feeding tube, in a landmark ruling on euthanasia.
The high-profile case involved 71-year-old Erika Kuellmer who slipped into a vegetative state after a cerebral haemorrhage in October 2002 and, confined to a nursing home, was fed through a tube for five years.
Although Kuellmer had expressed the wish not to be kept alive under such circumstances, the home's management refused to let her die.
On the advice of her lawyer, Kuellmer's daughter finally cut the feeding tube with a pair of scissors in the presence of her brother and Kuellmer died two days later of "natural causes", according to an autopsy.
A lower court acquitted the daughter of killing her mother because she had "mistakenly" followed her lawyer's advice. The son committed suicide a few months after the death of his mother.
Meanwhile the attorney, Wolfgang Putz, was convicted and given a nine-month suspended sentence.
But the federal tribunal found that Putz, a prominent patients' rights advocate, had acted legally and in the patient's interest because she had clearly expressed her wish not to be kept alive artificially.
"An improvement in her health condition was not to be expected," the court said in a statement on the ruling.
"The expressed wish of the patient in September 2002, which her carers had approved and confirmed, was binding."
A German law went into effect last September allowing patients to pre-determine which life-saving measures they would opt not to receive in a medical emergency.
Chief justice Ruth Rissing-van Saan had said when agreeing to hear the case that the court aimed to define the line between "killing" and "natural death".
"The expressed wishes of the patient... justified not only the end of treatment via the withholding of further nourishment but also the active step of ending or preventing the treatment she no longer wanted," the court said.
The issue is particularly charged in Germany, where the Nazis cynically labelled a mass extermination programme for around 100,000 disabled people deemed unfit to live "euthanasia".
Before the court, Putz had argued that Kuellmer's life was no longer worth living in the eyes of her family.
Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger hailed the ruling as a victory for self-determination and dignity in death.
"There may not be forced medical treatment against a person's will," she said.
But patients' right organisations warned that Germans needed to be "crystal clear" in formulating their wishes.
"Only clearly formulated living wills can be respected," Sonja Hecker of the German Association for Provision and Care Rights advised, to spare dying patients and their loved ones battles in court.
It's funny, I remember reading a forum post linking to a news story about a man who was being kept alive by a pacemaker. He was essentially a vegetable and could not simply hav ethe life support device turned off. This seems like a similar story, except in Germany, not America.
What bothers me in this is that the lawyer, form as far as I can tell, acted completely legally and according to the wishes of the patient.
It seems to me that this is still in the territory of how hard to fight to keep people alive, not authanasia which is taking a direct action to stop life processes.
Physician Assisted Suicide and/or Euthanasia are subjects that no politician wants to deal with and so antiquated laws, pre-dating modern science, still hold sway. We can spare our pets from an agonizing death, but not grandpa.
Life and death decisions should be made jointly by the patient, the physician, and the family. The moral aspects of such a decision should be dealt with by the patient and the family.
My thoughts, respectfully.
There are just some things the government should not be involved in and end of life decisions made by patients is one of them. A person should always have the right to determine what measures can and can not be used to sustain their life. It should never be the decision of the courts.
by pmccray 8 years ago
I like to read the opinion of my fellow hubbers regarding the ruling struck down by the Supreme Court today. It seems that the all Republican appointees struck down a ruling regarding regulation of corporations' influence on election and public policy. Bottom line; Huge corporations...
by PrettyPanther 3 years ago
1) Chief Justice John Roberts displays judicial temperament instead of conservative pandering. Victory.2) Conservatives once again on the wrong side of history (Social Security, anyone?). Sad, but typical.3) While we (including me) often fret that it doesn't really matter who is...
by Stacie L 7 years ago
Germany Women Bras Court RulingGerman bosses can order women workers to wear bras but they must be white or flesh-coloured to avoid being see-throughA court in Germany ruled today that bosses have the right to order female employees to wear bras in the workplace.Furthermore, the length of a...
by Amber Allen 5 years ago
Would you use the K-E Diet that is also called the feeding tube diet?I'm researching this diet to write a hub and wondered how many people would pay $1499 to feed themselves through a tube for 10 days to lose 10 to 20 pounds. It isn't a diet that I would considered using myself even if it...
by Vishaaa 7 years ago
Euthanasia, is it right or wrong from your point of view? Should it be legalized?Are you agree with mercy killing?
by freecampingaussie 6 years ago
What is your opinion on the feeding tube down your nose to lose weight ?Just seen it on the news ..I feel sick at the idea of having a tube down my nose - (unless needed because I was ill )Think it is sad that people would resort to such drastic measures when they don't look big to start with .
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|