Just superb. Thank you for sharing this! The language is powerful and precise. I would even say this is an important humanist document.

The intended purpose aside, there are many ways this can be abused.

Signatures can be forged all the time. Normally this is no problem. Even if incapacitated someone can "find" an old document or will that in actually didn't exist before the person's incapacitation. Difference is, this makes it easy to legally murder someone. No questions asked. Because the state is the killer and there's nothing to hide.

this makes it easy to legally murder someone. — Outlander

What on earth? So people are going to start forging papers to get people to go through a process of suicide in an attempt to murder them? I mean, come on.

What this does mean is that the State cannot force a person to stay alive and suffer until the last breath. This is truly a triumph, the document contains tremendous beauty and powerful arguments.

"Where, in the exercise of this right, an individual decides to end their own life, having reached this decision based on how they personally define quality of life and a meaningful existence, their decision must, in principle, be respected by state and society as an act of autonomous self-determination."

Win for intelligence! Win for freedom! Schopenhauer is applauding from his grave.

What on earth? So people are going to start forging papers to get people to go through a process of suicide in an attempt to murder them? I mean, come on. — JerseyFlight

It's called a divergence from your preconceived notions. Earth shattering, I know. To be fair, you're in the majority there.

If I'm say I don't know horribly depressed and want to shoot myself but for some reason cannot gather the will to do so, perhaps I'd ask somebody to do it for me. Ergo, if such a document allowing somebody to do so is now legal, all I have to do is enter somebody's home with a pistol, shoot them, and show the cops a document one could presumably in the idea of freedom, print out from their home computer and sign. Not complicated.

Ergo, if such a document allowing somebody to do so is now legal, all I have to do is enter somebody's home with a pistol, shoot them, and show the cops a document one could presumably in the idea of freedom, print out from their home computer and sign. Not complicated. — Outlander

Don't always see it as a tool for misconduct.

This has to be one of the most enlightened documents EVER written:

"The right to a self-determined death is not limited to situations defined by external causes like serious or incurable illnesses, nor does it only apply in certain stages of life or illness. Rather, this right is guaranteed in all stages of a person’s existence. Restricting the scope of protection to specific causes or motives would essentially amount to a substantive evaluation, and thereby predetermination, of the motives of the person seeking to end their own life, which is alien to the Basic Law’s notion of freedom. The individual’s decision to end their own life, based on how they personally define quality of life and a meaningful existence, eludes any evaluation on the basis of general values, religious dogmas, societal norms for dealing with life and death, or considerations of objective rationality. It is thus not incumbent upon the individual to further explain or justify their decision; rather, their decision must, in principle, be respected by state and society as an act of autonomous self-determination." Ibid.

against archaic, moralistic, and hypocritical anti-suicide views used as justification for controlling others’ most personal decision. — Natherton

Tell us how you really feel! The trouble with invective like this is that it's not possible to tell if you're against the whole genus or just the bad species. That is, against all anti-suicide measures, or just against some, the bad ones.

As to assisted suicide, that's not simple. The flaw is manifest here: "an act of autonomous self-determination." Ordinarily it is not an "act of autonomous self-determination" to scream and bend down and kiss the ground. But if a bad man were to twist your arm to the breaking point and if necessary beyond, then you might! Question: would that be an autonomous act of self-determination?

If circumstance of life drives an individual to suicide there's not much to be done about it, because it's done. In the case of assisted suicide, motive matters. Can there be any legitimate motive to assist suicide? What does the agent say? "He wanted to die, and, I thought he should die"?

Hmm. It seems to me the German law is couched in terms that make it unreal in practice - perhaps an example of German efficiency. The real test is not whether one may commit suicide, but the status of any who provide active assistance. Imo it's not an unsolvable problem, simply one not to be solved in any facile way.

I don't have the time right now to look into the law in question, but the words "as a professionalized service" are interesting. Those words indicate, or at least imply, that a paid service, presumably by someone in a profession licensed by the state, is the subject of the prohibition of the law. So, conceivably the law is intended to criminalize the conduct of professionals in charging for their services rendered in assisting in a suicide. If that's so, volunteering to assist without charge wouldn't be criminal.

If that's the intent, it raises interesting questions (at least I think so): May someone assisting a suicide charge for their services? If so, how much should they be allowed to charge? Leave that to the market?
Who'd be responsible for payment? I imagine payment "up front" would be demanded. A whole new industry for regulation!

Those words indicate, or at least imply, that a paid service — Ciceronianus the White

Paid in advance or in arrears? Absurdly, that makes a difference, laughable and serious. I pay you in advance to commit a crime. Until the crime is committed, we're not guilty of that crime. Other crimes maybe, but not that one. Paid in arrears? By whom?

Agreements to commit a crime are generally void, and so unenforceable. So, anyone performing the service would want money up front. But even if there was no crime, that would be the smart way to go. Otherwise, the suicide's estate may be liable depending on the law, but why bother with whatever procedure that would require?

If the agreement was legal, I suppose the obligation to pay could be guaranteed by someone who could be collected against after the suicide, but again money up front would be best for the...Assistor? The Terminator? I can't help but imagine the advertising which would be generated by those providing the service for money.

Two opinion questions. In the quote above is this:

It is thus not incumbent upon the individual to further explain or justify their decision; rather, their decision must, in principle, be respected by state and society as an act of autonomous self-determination. — JerseyFlight

1) Do you buy the notion that in general would-be suicides are making autonomous, self-determined decisions? I accept that in theory an individual may resign his life in the same way a chess-master resigns a chess game. That is, the chess-master knows it's all over but for a move or two - life, of course, differing from chess in some significant ways.

Kant was against it, categorically. But I find no reference in Kant to the situation of the terminally ill and suffering person already near death. It's possible that situation was rare and self-resolved soon enough in any - almost every - case.

2) On the assumption that would-be suicides are making a "good" decision (criteria here unspecified), is the community obliged to facilitate assistance either actively or passively? That is, on request is your doctor obliged to give you the lethal pills or administer them himself, or alternatively, may some set up businesses to render that service while the community "looks the other way"?

Do you buy the notion that in general would-be suicides are making autonomous, self-determined decisions? — tim wood

Of course there's a problem here. Some people are severely depressed when they make this decision, but it is indeed hard to argue that we have the right to hold them to suffering. There is more to it than just the immediate state, this is brought about by other conditions. In order for life to be worth living it must have quality conditions. There is a hard logic here that people are not ready to accept, and that is the fact that life cannot be unconditionally justified, there are times when it is foolish to continue living. In these circumstances all one is doing is prolonging suffering out of fear or idealism.

A quick reply: depression is an illness. Arguably then an incompetent decision. So-called clinical depression is a risk factor for suicide. But this discussion as I understand it is not about the suicide him- or herself, but those who assist, and whether actively or passively. I, then, would be opposed to, for example, filling a prescription for lethal drugs for a depressed person.

1) Do you buy the notion that in general would-be suicides are making autonomous, self-determined decisions? I accept that in theory an individual may resign his life in the same way a chess-master resigns a chess game. That is, the chess-master knows it's all over but for a move or two - life, of course, differing from chess in some significant ways. — tim wood

I don't know how many of those who have committed suicide or who contemplate suicide are making "autonomous, self-determined decisions."

I don't think suicide is appropriate solely because someone wants to die. I dislike the concept of "rights" in morals, though I think it has a place in law and for the purpose of protecting civil liberties. So, it isn't clear to me anyone would have a non-legal right to die regardless of the circumstances. At the same time, though, I don't think the law should prohibit suicide in all cases, or make assisting in it criminal in all cases.

There's a distinction between law and morals. I prefer virtue ethics in part because I tire of people insisting they have non-legal rights which must be respected in all cases.

I think the decision whether or not suicide is proper has to be made on a case by case basis. I don't think, for example, that suicide is necessarily justified where others depend on the person contemplating suicide for their well being (financial or otherwise). In that case, their interests should be considered. Suicide isn't merely a selfish concern. If others will suffer significantly and needlessly because of a suicide, I don't think the decision to commit suicide would be virtuous. Suicide obviously isn't appropriate where the potential suicide is incapable of making an informed decision or suffering from a delusion motivating the suicide.

But there are circumstances where suicide may be appropriate. When someone is presented with an intolerable choice to be made, such as when the circumstance is such that one either must die or others must die, for example.

This all makes the decision whether or not to commit suicide and whether to make it subject to law a difficult question.

2) On the assumption that would-be suicides are making a "good" decision (criteria here unspecified), is the community obliged to facilitate assistance either actively or passively? That is, on request is your doctor obliged to give you the lethal pills or administer them himself, or alternatively, may some set up businesses to render that service while the community "looks the other way"? — tim wood

I don't think there is any such obligation. There is no duty to help someone to commit suicide, though one may do so voluntarily.

About the law. Suicide in itself shouldn't be criminal. People who make informed decisions which impact only their own lives should be allowed to do so. Assisting someone who wants to die because they're subject to a treatable mental disease may be criminal, however.

Yes, I agree with much of what you said here, but even this category is not absolute enough to sustain itself. Conversations need to be had regarding psychologically induced states, clarifications need to be brought and verified. Not easy to do. Is the burden of proof on the depressed person? Social help is required. Interesting, this is not how conservatism works. They shout from the rooftops about the dignity and importance of life and then they do everything to remove the social structures that are necessary to life's quality.

:up: :up: Three pretty much in agreement. A record for TPF?