The Federal Minister of Health Jensa Spahna (CDU) instructions to refuse euthanasia release claims have been brought by the competent Federal Bureau of Medicinal Products and Medical Products (BfArM) according to their own statements in the dilemma. The Bonn authority, which is under the authority of the Minister, considers a long-term view of patient demands that are willing to die as meaningless and long-lasting if the result is clear. This critique comes from the internal letter of the head of the Bundesopiumstelle BfArM to the authorities that had to be issued under the Law on Freedom of Information (IFG) Tagesspiegel. The letter states: "It does not matter if BfArM is now questioning the content and justifying the decision to reject it or not: decisions will now be subject to the condition that instead of the appropriate content test is issued according to the instructions."
In March 2017, the Federal Administrative Court decided in the final instance that seriously ill people in unbearable suffering could get permission from BfArM to acquire deadly narcotics to take away their lives. The Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) refuses to enforce a controversial judgment because it commits the state to assist in suicide. Accordingly, in late June last year, Spahn issued instructions to reject the request as a result. Since the verdict was issued, BfArM received 127 applications and 93 have already been rejected. During the waiting period, 24 patients died.
Although BfArM declares on the outside, it approves the requests "after a careful case-by-case review, taking into account the individual circumstances." But from the now published documents it becomes clear that officials see under the "Spacer" before "dilemma in processing requests", it seems "unreasonable" to examine the contents of the claim "if the outcome of the decision is already known before processing the request."
However, BfArM adheres to complex test procedures. Candidates are regularly invited to submit medical reports and patient information. Finally, a safe rejection is followed. Also, all objections to the decisions have been rejected, up to now a total of eighteen. In eight cases, those who have been affected have been retaliated to justice.
It may also depend on the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on Objections to the Criminal Code, paragraph 217. The provision prohibits "business" promotion of suicide. Patients see that their right to self-determination has been violated and doctors have lost their professional freedom. At a trial in April, constitutional judges showed skepticism about a criminal offense. A judgment expected to fall could mark the change. Spahn sent observers to Karlsruhe on trial, but refused to report parliament and press. "The federal government does not comment on the current court proceedings," he says. Tagesspiegel submitted an urgent request to the Cologne Administrative Court to request the Ministry of Health to publish it.
It is also possible that the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which is expected on Wednesday, will contribute to the liberalization of euthanasia. The Court found two cases in which doctors from Berlin and Hamburg followed patients to death after taking lethal drugs without taking life-saving measures. The regional courts in Berlin and Hamburg have freed doctors. On the other hand, prosecutors have filed an audit, and now the cases are in the 5th Penal Code of the BGH in Leipzig. Active euthanasia, ie Killing on Demand, is punishable in Germany. On the other hand, a medical termination of treatment is permitted and may even be compulsory if this is in accordance with the express wishes of the dying person. The legal situation is unclear if doctors accompany their patients in suicide or provide assistance. If they do this several times, this may include a punitive "business" promotion of suicide assistance.