http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/ Company / html 0,1518,702790,00
Press Release Federal Court.
& http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell ; Sort = 12288 & num = 623 & pos = 0 & nr = 52 416 & linked = Blank & pm = 1
The chief of the press release:
" ... The question to go out the conditions under which in cases of actual consent, inability of a binding patient's wishes is was time of the crime by another is not readily compatible decisions of the Federal Court has not been clarified. divergences in the case concerned the liability of so-called living wills and the question of whether the admissibility limits of the termination of life-sustaining treatment on fatal and irreversible progressive disease of the patient or independent of the type and stage of the disease, also capture the requirement of judicial approval of a Decision the legal guardian of such a measure. The legislature has these issues by the so-called living will law with effect from 1 September 2009 any. The Senate could decide, therefore, without being bound by previous decisions of other tribunals.
The district court in the results correctly assumed that was lawful because the compromise with the home management's decision to abstain from further artificial nutrition and that the announcement by the home management recovery could be seen as an unlawful attack against the self-determination of the patient. In September 2002 expressed consent of the patient had reviewed and confirmed their carers, developed and presented both to binding since 1 September 2009 as well after the time of the crime is the current legal justification would violate dar. this now, as is now § 1901 a Section 3 BGB expressly provided, regardless of the type and stage of disease.
contrast, makes the evaluation of the district court not to, the defendant had made through his active involvement in the prevention of the resumption of food offense of attempted manslaughter. By a supervisor - in line with the now-enacted provisions of § § 1901 a, 1904 Civil Code - approved Consent of the patient not only justified the termination of treatment by simply making no further food, but also a positive action, the termination or prevention was one of her not or no longer intended treatment. One is only the externals of action or inaction based distinction of unpunished euthanasia of criminal killing of the patient not the substantive difference between the wing of a euthanasia killing and practices justice to let the sick die Let the consent of the affected its course.
Judgement of 25 June 2010 - 2 StR 454/09 "
I am here to Consequences for the general doctrine of restraint and its differentiation express the active action until the verdict is on.
The verdict is not yet suffering the full text, you could call it here, but once it is published
& http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh ; Type = en & date = News & Sort = 12288 & number = 52 417 & pos = 0 & num = 623
0 comments:
Post a Comment