Playing God (2020) Movie Script
1
Playing God
German National Library of Science
and Humanities, Berlin
Meeting of the German Ethics Council
May I ask for silence?
I open today's meeting
of the Ethics Council.
Thank you very much for coming.
The Council acts on its own initiative.
This concerns the following case:
Richard Gartner, whom I welcome here,
requested from
the Federal Institute for Drugs
a dose of sodium pentobarbital.
The drug is used for euthanasia
in other countries.
Mr. Gartner stated that he wanted
to take his own life.
What is unusual is that
Mr. Gartner is not terminally ill,
but perfectly healthy.
Nevertheless, he wants
to take his own life.
That's sick!
No interruptions!
We will hear all arguments.
The Federal Institute refused
to release the medication.
Thereupon, Mr. Gartner asked
his family doctor
for assistance in his suicide.
So much for the facts.
Should a doctor assist a person
in committing suicide?
Would that be ethically right?
We will discuss this today.
We have invited Mr. Gartner
and his lawyer, Mr. Biegler.
Three experts will assist us.
Professor Litten, Faculty of Law.
Professor Sperling
from the German Medical Association.
Bishop Thiel.
And Dr. Brandt,
Mr. Gartner's family doctor.
Ladies and gentlemen,
your opinion will also
be taken into account.
As members of the Ethics Council
you are independent.
Your advice is intended to help
with an important ethical question.
Should a person, like Mr. Gartner,
have the right
to end his life
with the help of a doctor?
Let us begin.
Mr. Gartner,
thank you for making
your case public.
Please, describe your request.
I want to die.
Why?
You're not sick, are you?
No, no.
Apart of a few minor ailments
of old age, I'm quite healthy.
Then why do you want to die?
I don't want to live anymore.
Would you explain it?
I am 78 years old.
I was married for 42 years.
My wife,
Elisabeth,
died three years ago.
What did she die of?
Brain tumor.
As big as a ping-pong ball.
In a clinic.
What did you do for a living?
I,
I was an architect.
When did you stop working?
After Elisabeth's death.
- Do you have children?
- Yes.
Two sons.
And three grandchildren.
Does your family know
about your wish to die?
Yes, of course, the children.
Since Elisabeth's death,
we've discussed this again and again.
All the arguments, up and down.
They have,
well,
accepted it.
The grandchildren
are still very young.
What has changed for you
since your wife died?
Everything.
Elisabeth and I
used to go to
charitable organizations,
cultural associations,
to theaters,
to concerts,
to art openings, to invitations.
We traveled a lot.
We wanted to see the whole world.
I gave all that up.
Alone,
I can't do that.
I miss her.
I miss her when I wake up,
when I fall asleep.
I miss her in everything I do.
Everything I see.
She's gone.
And I'm still here.
That's not right.
That's not right.
Not after 42 years.
Is it impossible to find
meaning in life again
through your grandchildren?
My grandchildren are wonderful, but
I can't
I can't.
You see, since Elisabeth's death
I'm only half the person I used to be.
No, that's not true.
I have lost touch with myself,
completely lost touch with myself.
I just want to die in peace.
I understand.
- Any more questions, Dr. Keller?
- Thank you.
Mr. Biegler, perhaps?
Richard,
why don't you want a
completely normal death?
Life means nothing to me anymore.
I don't want to end up in
a hospital, hooked up to tubes.
I don't want to become demented,
but rather die properly.
The way I lived.
Tell us of Elisabeth's death.
She died in a hospital.
Yes.
Did she suffer?
For a year and a half.
Pain, incapacitation,
falls with fractures.
Helplessly.
Confusion.
All which one fears.
She was in a very bad state.
And...
Please, forgive me, but
in the end, she asked
the doctors for redemption.
That's what she called it, yes.
She was a believer.
Did she receive any medication?
No.
She asked me
to get her something,
to end her suffering.
I couldn't do it.
I didn't even know how.
The doctors gave her
a lot of morphine at some point.
Did she die peacefully?
I don't know.
I don't know, it still pains me.
I was only out for half an hour.
When I came back, she was dead.
Please, don't ask any more.
There's one more thing
you have to say.
Why are you here?
Elisabeth was always very committed.
She was a very political person.
Shortly before she died,
she asked me
in the hospital:
"Do it right."
"Your suicide is meant to
point beyond it."
Elisabeth wanted me
to solve the problem
that made her suffer for so long.
This problem, which now
is tormenting me,
by making it public.
That's why I'm here.
I want
everyone to understand that
it's OK my desire to die.
I want people
like me to get HELP.
I want to die.
And
it is not immoral,
it is not selfish, either.
And not sick.
I have no more questions.
Thank you very much.
- I know how difficult this is.
- Yes ?
Dr. Brandt, please.
Dr. Brandt,
is Mr. Gartner your patient?
Yes.
Mr. Gartner asked you
to help him suicide?
One year after his wife's death,
it was the first time.
After the Federal Institute
denied his request for medication
he came to me.
We discussed about it, but
Mr. Gartner could not be dissuaded.
What is your opinion on
Mr. Gartner's wish to die?
I do not want to assist in a suicide.
Furthermore, I also doubt whether
it would be right for other doctors
to help their patients with this.
You don't see he has depression!
Dr. Brandt,
does Mr. Gartner suffer from depression?
No, he's just sad.
I have two short expert opinions
that confirm Ms. Brandt's statement.
From a psychologist and a psychiatrist.
According to the expert opinions,
Mr. Gartner is neither mentally ill,
nor is there a disorder
that would prevent him
from asserting his values.
Dr. Brandt, are there any doubts
about the experts' qualifications?
No.
Do you know if Mr. Gartner's wish
was influenced by anyone?
That is not in his character.
One of his sons tried
to persuade him out of it.
One last question.
Did you talk to Mr. Gartner about
other methods of suicide?
- I advised him against it.
- Why?
I worked in an emergency room.
There you could see many
failed suicide attempts.
Describe some.
Let's take hanging.
Statistically, over 50% of
the suicide attempts by hanging
often fail.
The rope breaks, beams or
other supports give way.
People who survive
suffer severe, irreparable injuries.
Other suicide attempts
also often fail.
For example?
People who jump from buildings and
end up paralyzed from the waist down.
Other people try to kill themselves
with a car accident and injure others.
People end up with
their lower jaw...
Thank you, no more questions.
Thank you very much, Dr. Brandt.
We hear the experts.
Professor Litten, please!
As you know, it is
the Ethics Council's mandate to
present our questions publicly,
and thus promote public discussion.
Dr. Keller, a long-standing member
of the Council, is prepared to
conduct the expert interviews.
Please!
Thank you.
Ms. Litten.
You are a professor of constitutional
law at the Free University of Berlin.
You wrote expert opinions
for the government.
You were chair of the "German
Association of Constitutional Law"
and you are a constitutional
judge in Brandenburg.
Correct, yes.
Can you describe the legal situation
regarding assisted suicide?
Suicide is not considered a crime
because a homicide requires
the death of another person.
In the case of suicide or attempt
suicide, the only question is
whether and how someone assisting
is liable to prosecution.
Does this depend on
what the helper does?
Yes, exactly.
There are four forms
of euthanasia:
active euthanasia,
indirect euthanasia,
assisted suicide,
and passive euthanasia, today
called withdrawal of treatment.
Please, describe them.
Active means that death is
actively brought about.
The doctor administers
the lethal injection.
It is forbidden;
it is called euthanasia.
In what is now called
withdrawal of treatment
the physician knowingly forgoes
life-prolonging measures
or discontinues any measure.
It is required
the patient's request
in written form.
In indirect euthanasia,
the life-shortening effect
of a medication is accepted.
Say, the pain of a terminally ill
person is relieved with morphine.
Morphine also has a life-shortening
effect above a certain dose.
This is permitted
if the patient requests it.
Is the legal framework around
assisted suicide complicated?
No, because our penal code,
that came into effect
in 1872 in Bismarck's time,
does not prohibit such assistance.
Forty years ago, it was decided
that aiding and abetting suicide
would be exempt from punishment,
if the person assisting
saves him immediately.
I don't understand.
I'll try to explain
with an example.
The wife is allowed to give
her husband the rope
with which he will hang himself.
He hangs himself from the beam.
But she must
cut him down immediately.
Otherwise, she will be charged
with failure to render assistance.
It won't do her any good
if she runs away immediately.
She must be so far away
that she can't get back.
- That sounds absurd.
- Yes, it does.
It's hard to imagine, pha
that an accomplice would be
charged and convicted.
But it couldn't be ruled out.
I am allowed to hand
the suicide victim the pistol,
but I must save him immediately.
I am not allowed to shoot him, either.
That is generally correct,
but in 2015 a new law was passed.
What did the law say?
In this new provision in Section 217
of the German Criminal Code, it states,
that he will be punished who,
I quote:
"... with the intention of
promoting the suicide of another,
commercially provided,
arranged, or arranged
the opportunity for this purpose."
Who was affected?
Assisted dying organizations
and palliative care physicians.
What are palliative care physicians?
These are doctors who treat
patients with short life expectancy.
Thank you.
According to this law
close relatives were allowed
to provide assistance,
but assisted dying organizations and
palliative care physicians were not.
The law contradicted
our constitution.
The right to privacy also includes
the right to self-determined death.
The citizen has the freedom
to take his own life,
and to seek help for doing so.
The decision to take one's own life,
is to be respected as an act
of autonomous self-determination.
Therefore,
the Federal Constitutional Court
rightly declared Section 217
null and void in 2020.
Please!
Silence, please!
Professor, doesn't
the constitution protect citizens?
From what? The right to kill
oneself is a fundamental right.
I mean, assisted
suicide organizations.
Companies that, for profit,
drive people to suicide.
Yes, such excesses must be banned.
But in Switzerland, these are
non-profit organizations.
They do not generate
financial profits.
Can the legislature
forbid it anyway?
- No.
- No?
No, it can only regulate it.
But does it check whether a
person genuinely wants to die?
- Whether the wish is permanent?
- Yes, the state can do that.
It can check whether assisted
suicide associations are reliable.
It can regulate the duty
to inform and report.
Counseling is also mandatory.
The legislature must grant
its approval regardless of whether
- it is an incurable illness.
- Yes.
To put it another way,
does Mr. Gartner have a right
to a lethal medication?
Yes, he does.
But the doctor decides freely
whether to help.
How is this handled
in other countries?
In Austria, active euthanasia
is a criminal offense.
It falls under the categories
of murder, euthanasia,
or assisted suicide.
In the Netherlands,
physician-assisted suicide is legal.
The physicians must
prepare a report.
This will be submitted
to a commission.
In case of doubt, the public
prosecutor's office will be contacted.
That would also be
conceivable in our case.
Doesn't criminal law
protect our lives?
Absolutely.
Assisting a suicide that
is not voluntary is punishable.
The constitution must not
patronize its citizens.
The state can't assist in a suicide.
True, but that's not the point.
The question is,
is the state allowed to interfere,
if a doctor wants to help
someone who wants to die?
What would be the consequences
if anyone
is allowed to kill himself
with medical assistance?
An 18-year-old with a broken heart
could request the medication.
Or a 20-year-old
who has lost his job.
As strange as this may sound,
there is no legal
obligation to live.
The obligation to live
cannot exist in a free state.
If you take free will seriously,
you are right.
Then you cannot legally distinguish
the suicidal wish of a young,
healthy person
from that of an old, sick person.
But of course it must be verified
whether a free decision of will exists.
In the case of a mentally
ill person, I would deny it.
But minors are also allowed
to kill themselves.
Belgium has a very liberal
assisted suicide law.
Minors are also allowed to
commit physician-assisted
suicide.
Has this ever happened?
Three such cases are known
from 2016 and 2017.
How old were the children?
There were two children
and a teenager.
They were 9, 11, and 17 years old.
- Was that really allowed?
- They were all terminally ill.
One suffered from a
severe metabolic disorder.
The other had brain tumors, the
third had fatal muscular dystrophy.
Their lives had become
nothing but torment.
They wanted to die.
The parents and the doctors
were consulted beforehand.
Their consent was,
of course, a prerequisite.
Does something like this
happen elsewhere?
Luxembourg and the Netherlands, yes.
This is a watershed moment.
Yes. But the Benelux countries are
just as rule-of-law-bound as we are.
The discussion we have
is still ongoing there.
If doctors do something like that,
it will lead to extremes.
We experienced it; think
of the Nazi euthanasia program.
They murdered 300,000 people
with physical
and mental disabilities.
They sterilized
over 400,000 people.
10,000 children with hereditary
diseases and disabilities were killed
in so-called children wards.
The goal was the extermination
of the so-called "unworthy life".
Those were murders. Killings
against the will of those affected.
This has nothing to do
with our discussion.
Oh, it does!
It all starts innocently enough.
It was about murders for
the alleged good of society.
We are discussing the
complete opposite here:
the self-determination
of a responsible citizen.
Yes, but that is
how it always starts.
The physician Leo Alexander,
who observed the trials
against the Nazi doctors,
wrote that it had become clear
to all trial observers,
I quote:
"that these crimes began small.
At the beginning, subtle shifts
occurred among the doctors.
It began with the
fundamental understanding,
that there are situations
that are no longer worth living.
At first, this attitude only
applied to the seriously ill.
But gradually,
this category was expanded
and the socially unproductive,
the ideologically undesirable,
the racially undesirable
were included." End quote.
Even back then, it started harmlessly
and only later led to the murders.
How would the individual
be protected in the future?
One can check whether
a death wish is sincere,
whether it is well-considered,
or whether it has been influenced.
That is false.
Through such universally
valid assumptions, we will make
death negotiable.
Then we will also
negotiate killing.
There are people
who want to kill themselves.
Think of Dr. Brandt's case.
Or the numerous
suicides on railway tracks.
They are terrible!
Nevertheless, doctors are not
allowed to assist healthy people
in committing suicide.
Whether a doctor wants
to help his patient,
the law cannot answer.
This must be answered according
to ethical and moral principles.
This was decided by
the Federal Constitutional Court.
We deeply regret
if someone wants to kill himself.
We must try to change his mind.
But if we fail,
we must respect and
accept his free decision.
Thank you.
No further questions.
Thank you, Dr. Keller.
Please, Mr. Biegler.
- You may remain seated.
- Thank you, I prefer to stand.
My name is Biegler,
I am a lawyer.
I represent
Mr. Gartner's interests.
I know who you are.
From where?
From the trials
in which you defended
in the court where I am a judge.
Well, I do what I can.
You stated that
the medical decision
should be made according
to ethical and moral principles.
Yes.
You mean according
to Christian values?
Yes, but not necessarily.
Can you clarify?
The Basic Law states that the
freedom of belief and conscience
and the freedom of
religious belief are inviolable.
Furthermore, the undisturbed
practice of religion is guaranteed.
What does that mean?
That everyone can believe
whatever he wants.
Is the Christian faith
not given preferential treatment?
According to the Federal Constitutional
Court, the preferential treatment
of a certain religious
denomination is prohibited.
We often read that our state is
based on Christian values.
The constitution also
refers to God.
According to the preamble,
the Basic Law was
enacted with responsibility
before God and humankind.
This is the case in many countries.
Does the state not thereby
profess Christianity?
No.
Legal scholars assume
that mentioning God
is an expression of humility.
- Humility?
- Yes.
The Basic Law was drafted
after World War II.
No one wanted
a Nazi state ever again.
What does that
have to do with God?
Every totalitarian state
sees itself as an absolute state.
The state is an end in itself.
The fathers of
the Basic Law rejected this.
They also knew that
the constitution is flawed.
There is no perfect state order.
But knowing that a human
beings actions are limited,
that is humility; that is why
God is mentioned in the preamble.
The Basic Law therefore
does not impose Christianity.
It is not a decision in favor
of a Christian state.
Christian values have
no binding force
here in our discussion.
That's correct.
Thank you.
We will hear Bishop Thiel
talk about Christian values.
Good.
Dr. Keller has just talked about
the now-permitted assisted suicide
causing a dam break.
In which countries
is there such a regulation?
Liberal euthanasia laws
exist in Switzerland,
Belgium, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands,
in Canada and in the USA:
In Oregon, Washington,
Vermont, Colorado, and California.
In Sweden, it is permitted if
the helper is a private individual.
What is the experience there?
For example, in Switzerland?
There are six assisted suicide
organizations there.
"Exit" is the largest,
it has 120,000 members.
How often has the organization
provided assisted suicide?
Since its founding in 1982,
in more than 3,000 cases.
Have there been any rulings
against doctors or hospice workers
since the founding?
No, but every death is investigated.
How is assisted suicide
regulated there by law?
It is not punishable unless it is
carried out for selfish motives.
- Is that all?
- In terms of legal regulations, yes.
But "Exit" still requires
the patient's capacity to act,
the autonomy of the wish to die
and a serious illness
with unbearable suffering.
What is the role of the doctors?
They prescribe
sodium pentobarbital,
in a lethal dose: 15 grams.
Swiss physicians are likewise bound
by their professional ethics,
but they possess a margin of discretion
that the Swiss Medical
Association respects.
How old are the patients?
On average, 76 years old
and 50% have cancer.
I read that Germans are
killing themselves in Switzerland.
Yes, that's right.
The organization "Dignitas"
offers assisted suicide
for foreigners.
In 2017, about 71 Germans
took their own lives there.
Since the association's founding,
a total of 1,150 Germans
have died by assisted suicide.
Did assisted suicide cause
the "break of the dam"
that Dr. Keller lamented?
Switzerland and Germany have
the same number of suicides.
There was also no significant
increase in the Netherlands.
In light of these figures,
talk of a dam breaking is misguided.
Thank you.
I have no further questions.
Thank you,
Professor Litten.
I now welcome
Professor Sperling.
Thank you for taking the time.
Of course.
Are you on the board
of the German Medical Association?
On the executive committee.
Please, explain to
the council members,
what the German
Medical Association does.
The umbrella organization of the
profession's self-governing bodies.
It represents the professional policy
interests of German physicians.
Thank you.
- Please, ask your questions.
- Thank you.
Please, explain your opinion on
physician-assisted suicide.
Our understanding is simple.
Even non-physicians here are surely
familiar with the Hippocratic Oath.
The physician's pledge.
Hippocrates was a Greek physician.
The first formulation of medical
ethics was named after him.
Even in ancient times, the oath
forbade administering lethal substances.
This has not changed to this day.
Can you further explain?
A doctor's task is
to preserve life,
protect health,
alleviate suffering,
and provide support to the dying.
What about assisted suicide?
That's not end-of-life care;
doctors aren't allowed to do that.
It contradicts the oath.
- Were your members consulted?
- Yes, the vast majority rejects it.
62% is not a large majority.
No interruptions, please.
Let us maintain proper decorum, OK?
We heard that everyone has
the right to die with dignity.
Yes, I have a big problem with that.
With what?
To believe in the patient's
free self-determination.
Why?
Studies in Europe and the USA
on suicide have shown that
most people who commit suicide
have serious mental disorders.
90 to 95% of people who commit
suicide had mental illnesses.
But we can help. Depression
can be treated effectively today.
It has been shown that
after a depressive phase,
the desire to die vanishes.
People find their way back to life.
It would be cynical for a doctor
to assist in these type of situations.
He should heal, not kill.
Does the image of the doctor change,
when he administers a lethal drug?
Yes, of course.
A doctor who helps to kill destroys
the relationship of trust.
This relationship of trust is
the basis of all treatments.
What does that mean for a patient?
Every patient can be sure
that the doctor follows the rules.
He knows he will not kill him.
Without such fundamental
rules, there is no trust.
Why is trust jeopardized when
the doctor provides assistance?
Only if a doctor is
never allowed to kill,
does the patient have
ultimate certainty.
What does this mean
for end-of-life care?
We provide assistance
in and during dying.
We can discontinue
life-sustaining measures,
if the patient requests it.
But it is a catastrophe,
if we are to provide
assistance in dying.
No doctor is obligated to do it.
I would like to talk
about Mr. Gartner.
He is not mentally ill.
He doesn't need attention,
he just wants to die.
Yes, but why?
I can't judge from a distance.
Most people are afraid
of hospitals, of pain,
of loneliness.
- We have to do something about that.
- For example?
Offer palliative care
to the population.
Today we can eliminate suffering
and pain at the end of life,
and thus enable a dignified
death in a hospice or at home.
This costs a lot of money,
but it is necessary.
But Mr. Gartner wants,
as he said earlier,
to die peacefully, not on
life support and not helpless.
Yes, I can only repeat,
I don't know Mr. Gartner.
But apparently,
he distrusts medicine.
That's understandable,
but think about hospices,
the number of volunteers,
the palliative care physicians,
the nursing staff, whose task
is to alleviate suffering.
To claim that only physician-
assisted suicide is worthy,
is a slap in the face to those
who care for the terminally ill.
Is a dignified death
possible in hospices?
Yes, precisely there.
Thank you very much.
Please, Mr. Biegler.
I don't understand.
What is that?
The difference you make.
If a patient requests
to discontinue treatment,
- you help him.
- Yes, I am obligated to do so.
The patient takes the decision.
But giving him a means to
suicide is wrong.
Yes.
- I don't understand that.
- Let me explain.
Withdrawing treatment
is an omission.
Administering a remedy
is an active act.
But aren't both actions
in essence the same?
When discontinuing treatment,
you turn off machines,
you stop assisted nutrition.
You are active, as you say.
Bu .. bu .. but in the case
of assistance, I cause death.
Whereas in the case of
discontinuation, I accept it.
In discontinuation, death is not
an unintended side effect.
Letting die is the goal.
No, death is never our goal.
One thing is to die
from an incurable illness,
and another from poisoning.
If we assist in dying,
it will change society
and the way we die.
Who says that?
The German Medical Association,
the World Medical Association.
Predictions are difficult,
when they concern the future.
Mr. Lawyer, please,
do not play with words.
To conjure up a danger
is not to refute something.
Well, I'll try a different approach.
Why will society change?
If we have to offer such
a service in the future,
there will be a corresponding
item in the fee list.
Euthanasia: 146.80
We will need training.
Professors will hold
seminars on killing.
This is no longer a fringe area,
this is right in the heart of society.
Our Supreme Court
decided it that way.
What's wrong with that?
Good.
Does the "Ulm Memorandum"
mean anything to you?
That was a doctors' protest in 1964
against the new birth control pill.
140 doctors and professors
signed it.
The pill would lead
to public sexualization.
The doctor became, quote:
"servant of self-indulgence."
The pill could only
be prescribed to married women.
Yes, .. I don't defend that.
We're talking about something else.
Really? Many of your colleagues
at the time argued like you.
They saw, quote:
"a weakening of social morality,
which would lead the population
to fall into immorality."
- Yes, that was an exaggeration.
- The prediction was wrong.
The result was not immorality,
but a society without embarrassment.
Yes, that was a development.
- Development? Just like today.
- But today we have data.
Since medical aid has been
legalized in Oregon,
between 1998 and 2014
the cases increased by 700%
That sounds terrible, professor.
700% increase!
I will tell you
the number of cases.
Last year, 218 patients
were prescribed lethal medication.
Only 143 committed suicide.
So, it seems very reassuring
to have such a prescription.
The numbers are still alarming.
Are you serious?
One year earlier,
it was 138 people.
In the 20 years since
this law was passed,
only 1,275 people
committed suicide with
the help of doctors.
That's 700%?
Not even 70 people a year?
You have to extrapolate
the numbers to Germany.
You want us to think that,
let's say, in case of a fire
everyone will run to the
emergency exit, sure.
The fact that many people will
run to the emergency exit
is similar to the fact that many
people will commit suicide?
That's nonsense!
Emergency exit saves lives,
suicide brings death.
Your metaphor using emergency exit
and assitance is correct.
But ...
Well!
Again, the Hippocratic Oath...
The Hippocratic Oath! I forgot it!
When does a doctor take the oath?
During medical school?
Or in the medical licensing process?
He does not take oath.
Are you claiming an oath
you didnt swear?
The oath embodies the ethical
moral consensus of all physicians.
Is that so? Doesn't this
2000-year-old oath also state,
- one may not operate on a bladder stone?
- Yes, that's an exaggeration.
Or that one may not give
a woman an abortifacient?
Yes, but there is a modern version
of the physicians' oath:
The Declaration of Geneva.
Can you tell us the poison
passage from the oath?
The sentence reads:
"I will not give poison to anyone,
even at his request."
Is this also in the modern version
which is valid today?
A doctor may never give
poison to his patient?
- No.
- No?
So this passage, so important to you,
is missing? Like the bladder stone?
Please, Mr. Lawyer,
please!
But something else
is added in the modern version:
I quote, "I will respect the
autonomy and dignity of my patient".
Yes.
Isn't assisted suicide precisely
about autonomy and dignity?
That's not the meaning
of the paragraph.
The German Medical Association
has again clearly stated that
a doctor's action is unethicall
if he provides suicide assistance.
Isn't that a contradiction?
When a doctor can no longer
improve a patient's living condition,
doesn't his ethics then have
to allow assisted suicide?
A doctor cannot serve death.
I will not be forced to do so!
Nobody wants that.
You decide whether you want
to help a patient in this.
It's about whether doctors are
allowed to help, not obligated.
You don't want to understand me.
Understand you? Is it better
to talk about guns, knives, ropes,
or other gruesome madness?
Dr. Brandt made
a presentation earlier.
Earlier, you mentioned that
doctor-assisted suicide
would damage the trust between
doctor and patient.
Yes, the patient loses trust.
I would trust a doctor who helps me.
Even to die.
You believe that medicine is
a neutral activity,
a mere service. But it
is also a moral profession.
A doctor has a responsibility
for a patient.
Therefore, a better answer
to your questions is
offering palliative assitance.
Other doctors declare that
the last service to a person
is an act of the deepest respect,
of the highest humanity.
I heard the screams of people in
palliative care units 20 years ago.
Things are different today.
No one has to suffer anymore.
We can relieve almost
everyone's pain.
- Almost everyone?
- Yes, the desire to die disappears.
I know.
What if your art fails?
Palliative care
cannot always help.
Yes, almost always.
Why, then, are there patients in
palliative care who still want to die?
That's rare.
20% of palliative care patients
want to die. That's 20%
That's not exactly rare.
And you know, professor,
that the windows of cancer
wards are often barred.
But, even if you were right,
aren't there too few
palliative care units?
Yes, that is correct.
We urgently need to increase them.
How many doctors in Germany
are palliative care physicians?
Currently, about 3 %.
3% ?
Yes.
What is the benefit
of a painless death
that can only be offered
to a few patients?
- This will take decades.
- Yes.
But insisting on a quick solution,
in my opinion, is wrong.
Are you aware of the conclusions
from the last reputable surveys?
60 to 70% want a doctor to
assist them in committing suicide.
According to a 2003 survey, 84%
agreed with the following statement:
"If my doctor helps
a patient to commit suicide,
I will continue to trust him."
The opposite of what you declared.
Once again, we are concerned with
the patient's healing.
That is the essence of Medicine.
Doctor-assisted suicide blocks
an adequate treatment.
And yes, I'm familiar with the surveys.
But they are not compatible
with our medical ethos.
But you know that in Feb. 2020,
there was applause,
when the Federal Constitutional Court
read its ruling on assisted suicide.
The chairman of your
German Medical Association
has declared,
that doctor-assisted suicide is
dirty practice for doctors.
Yes, that was in a different context.
Doctors are not mechanics of death.
Please, leave this task
to the plumbers.
This was meant to clarify
the difference between a service
and an adequate medical treatment.
Do you know what that means for me?
For me whose wife begged
the doctors to help her die.
My wife and I,
we lived our lives
as we thought was right.
Don't you think that
it's outrageous your view
to send us to plumbers?
No, but I think
it's outrageous,
that a doctor, like Dr. Brandt,
to help, a healthy person,
to commit suicide.
This is an ethical dilemma
for a physician.
YOUR DAMN ETHOS is not above
the ethos of society!
In this country we are free men.
We are allowed to control
our lifes and deaths.
Why don't you trust your patients?
What makes you think you have
any right to play God?
I have no further questions.
Ladies and gentlemen,
the discussion has gone too far.
I understand your anxiety,
but no one is being accused.
Despite the seriousness of the matter,
please, maintain decorum, okay? Good.
Thank you very much,
Professor Sperling.
Now we will hear Bishop Thiel
as the last expert.
- Good afternoon, Bishop Thiel.
- Good afternoon.
Can you briefly introduce yourself
to the members of the council?
I am a member of
the Faith Commission
of the German Bishops' Conference.
Please, can you explain?
We are responsible
on matters of faith,
and on ethical questions
of biology and medicine.
And the Bishops' Conference?
That's an association
of Catholic bishops.
Thank you, good.
Please, Dr. Keller.
Mr. Bishop.
What is the [Catholic] Church's
position on assisted suicide?
Let's first clarify
what we're talking about.
Namely?
From antiquity to
the Enlightenment,
for 2,500 years, there was a consensus
to reject such acts of violence
that end one's own life.
This wasn't just the case
in philosophy.
All major religions in various cultures,
Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
they still agree today.
The Christian Church continues
to serve as a guardian within society.
Sounds like "Game of Thrones".
Mr. Biegler, do I have
to remind you? Please!
Ignore that, Bishop.
Even those who deal most with death,
the doctors, reject assisted suicide.
What is your opinion?
I believe in life.
I believe in
the infinite value of life
in every moment of human existence.
Life is sacred,
it is in relationship with God.
And if you no longer like
the word "sacred" today,
take our constitution.
It protects life.
That is a constitutional value.
But another value
is self-determination.
Naturally.
Self-determination, freedom,
but
solidarity, care,
protection of life,
These are also values
we cannot afford to give up.
In our society, there is still
a taboo against killing, thank goodness!
And this prohibition
is now to be lifted.
I don't want that.
It should remain forbidden
to kill a human being.
We are not talking about killing.
It should remain a criminal offense.
We are discussing only whether
it is ethically right for a doctor
to assist in committing suicide.
Only?
There aren't any major differences
anymore, one thing leads to another.
It is not justifiable
to allow assisted suicide
while prohibiting euthanasia.
Why?
Imagine,
you can no longer commit
suicide yourself.
You cannot drink the drug
because you are paralyzed.
If only assisted suicide
is permitted,
you would not be allowed to ask
the doctor to kill you.
You are at a disadvantage
just because you
can no longer move.
I can already hear the lawyers!
Such unequal treatment
is unacceptable.
So, the path must be followed
to the very end.
We will soon be discussing
and allowing euthanasia.
If that's correct,
what would the consequences be?
Terrible!
Imagine if a person could no longer
express any will at all.
He is lying on the operating
table after an accident,
the doctors say he will wake up
with severe injuries.
Should we then investigate
the presumed will of the person?
Or think about a man with Alzheimer's.
Let's say your father.
Or your uncle.
He is cheerful.
He enjoys the sun,
sitting in the garden,
but he is no longer the same person
you knew when he was healthy.
Do you want to question if
it would be better
if he died?
He said he never wanted to live
like this. And so the discussion begins.
We are already judging whether
a life is valuable or not.
"Unworthy life"
was a Nazi expression,
we must never go back there.
You fear a change in society.
Not at all, it's not
an abstract prediction.
Assisted suicide is already legal.
This is a different society.
What is different?
Within a short time, the pressure
on elderly people will increase
to kill themselves.
The elderly will become
a burden to the young.
They cost money
and consume resources.
They will say:
"You have lived long enough,
your life becomes difficult
and youre difficult to deal with,
so yes, take advantage
of the recognized option
and commit suicide with
the help of your family doctor."
Freedom becomes coercion.
If we judge life by its usefulness,
we will soon be back to
"favorable public opinion"
and determine who we
do not want in our community,
the disabled, the depressed,
the elderly, the slow.
The real danger
of a dam breaking is here.
Self-determination.
Yes, the self-determination
enthusiasts!
They believe it is entirely up
to them whether they want to die.
But natural death is part of life.
One must not avoid it.
No one wants to forbid suicide.
But respecting it,
doesn't mean that society
has to condone it,
that there is an
obligation to assist.
It only means that we don't prevent
a person committing suicide.
Assisted suicide requires another,
an additional motive.
And, I cannot see any.
On the contrary.
On the contrary?
We all .. live in a community.
In a family, with friends,
in a state.
And, everyone who
lives in a community
also has a responsibility,
everyone.
So, you are saying that
life doesn't belong to us alone.
It doesn't. Suicide is driven
entirely by egoistic motives.
It is inconsiderate to others.
This goes beyond religion,
its fundamentally immoral.
But there are doctors
who want to help out of compassion.
For them, providing assistance
is an act of charity.
Killing can never be an act of love.
It destroys the foundation
of love, of life itself.
How many people genuinely kill
themselves by their own free choice?
There are other reasons:
Despair because
his company went bankrupt.
Emotional crises, mental illnesses.
They need comfort, not a
doctor to help them kill themselves.
And, if we talk about entitlements,
citizens have the right
to be protected by the state
and
to be allowed to grow old and die.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Mr. Biegler, please.
Mr. Bishop.
You mentioned the alleged
watchdog role of the Church.
Yes, and you interrupted me.
The Pope exhorted the Church
at the German Catholic Congress,
to fulfill its duty as guardian.
It should, and I quote:
"raise its voice for the protection
of life from conception
to natural death."
The quote is from
the Holy Father, yes.
The Pope refers to Isaiah 62:
"O Jerusalem, I have set
watchmen upon your walls,
who shall never be
silent day or night."
That is a beautiful
and powerful image.
Aah!
What are you getting at?
In 2018, at the plenary assembly
of the Catholic bishops,
a study was presented.
According to this study, 1,670
Catholic clergy members in Germany
sexually abused
about 3,677 male minors.
I know.
Half were under 13 years old.
The number of unreported cases is unknown.
In the USA, in Illinois alone,
almost 700 clergy members are
alleged to have abused children.
The victims have suffered
immense pain.
Do you understand what I mean?
In light of this, can your Church
still be credible on moral issues?
The Church did not sin,
but some members did.
Your Church can never be wrong!
There will always be sinners
in the Church, not just the flawless.
A theological commission headed
by Cardinal Ratzinger, who would
later become Pope, affirmed
"the Church cannot be considered
a sinner in the sense
of being the direct subject
or agent of sinful acts."
What does that mean?
You must distinguish between a church
of sinners and the Holy Church.
I don't understand.
Sin presupposes
free-acting persons.
That does not apply to
the Holy Church.
No one will be able
to understand that.
There is also
organizational negligence.
Good!
Back to our topic, Bishop.
That's the Bible.
Thank you.
Who wrote this book?
People who were inspired
by the Spirit of God.
According to your religion,
these people put
God's thoughts on paper.
Correct?
Yes.
- Are suicides described in it?
- Yes.
But I don't know
how many there were.
Let me think.
Saul, his armor-bearer.
Judas Iscariot.
There are 9 suicides in the
Old Testament, 1 in the New.
That could be right, yes.
Find the passage where
God forbids suicide
and read it to us.
Or Jesus. Where does he
explain that suicide is a sin?
I can't do that.
Why not?
The Bible does not forbid suicide.
It does not condemn,
denounce, or forbid it,
anywhere in this thick book.
Not explicitly.
If it is not explicitly forbidden,
then explain to us why suicide
should be considered a sin.
Because that is the basis
for rejecting assisted suicide.
- The Church Father Augustine...
- Augustine of Hippo?
Yes.
Augustine lived in 400 AD
and was a great Father of the Church.
What did Augustine mention regarding
suicide 1,600 years ago?
That is written in his treatise
"De civitate Dei".
"The City of God."
- That is what the 5th Commandment...
- You mean: "Thou shalt not murder"?
Yes, the commandment applies
not only to another person,
but also to oneself.
The commandment forbids
killing oneself.
Augustine believed
suicide to be a mortal sin,
perhaps even the worst,
since the victim can no longer repent.
The person committing suicide
could no longer repent.
The suicide victim is lost forever.
As a Christian, I share this view.
Not easy to understand.
For a long time, there was no prohibition
against suicide, not even a moral one.
On the contrary.
In the Roman Empire, suicide
was considered a natural right.
Augustine thus held a rather
extravagant opinion.
How did he come to do that?
He wanted to prevent many
Christians from dying as martyrs.
Was he right?
Wasn't it the case that
the Church itself sentenced
the death penalty for many crimes?
For murder, yes.
Good. Isn't that a contradiction?
Should someone,
who murders, be killed?
This means the prohibition against
killing is no longer absolute.
- This is an exception.
- An exception?
Yes? Wasn't the death penalty
also applied to kidnapping?
But...
And killing was permitted
in other situations as well.
One could beat a slave to death
without being punished.
Because, according to the Bible, one
can do anything with one's property.
Yes, but...
Sodomites could be executed,
sorceresses could be killed.
In war, one could kill, and in
self-defense, one could kill others.
How did you or the Pope arrive at
an absolute ban on killing?
- That's simply not the case.
- That's in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament,
killing is not permitted.
But, aren't the 10 Commandments
in the Old Testament?
Shouldn't we read
the 5th Commandment in this context?
We must see God's commandments from
the perspective of the New Testament.
This is already too complicated
for me. You mean,
we should understand the
opposite of what is written.
Jesus' Sermon on the Mount
does not call for killing.
Jesus calls for love,
even for our enemy.
- If someone slaps you on the right...
- That's not an answer.
Your colleagues certainly didn't
adhere to your interpretation.
In what way?
You know it.
The Church unscrupulously violated
the prohibition against killing.
Think of the Holy Wars,
the deaths caused by Inquisitionera
torture, support for the death penalty.
The death penalty? It was abolished
at the Second Vatican Council.
- The word of Jesus applies...
- Oh! yes?
As recently as 1993
your catechism stated,
I quote:
"The death penalty is accepted
as a response to the severity
of some crimes for
the protection of the common good."
It was only in 2018, under Pope Francis,
that this brutality was only abolished.
Perhaps we can agree that
the idea of the 5th commandment
was not exactly
Augustine's finest achievement.
So, what other arguments
are there in your faith
against assisted suicide?
- Thomas Aquinas!
- Thomas Aquinas?
He was born 800 years after
Augustine. But nothing in between.
There were no further arguments.
The Church adopted
Augustine's views.
In 452 AD at the Council of Arles,
suicide was declared a crime.
Eighty years later, it was decided,
that suicides could not
be given a Christian burial.
And another 150 years
later, it was decided,
that attempted suicide must
be followed by excommunication.
- Probably the worst punishment.
- Yes, that's right.
The prohibition caused much suffering.
This church agreed to condemn
the bodies of suicides.
They were hanged and dragged through
the streets and pelted with stones.
By chance, the sovereigns harsh
treatment of suicides ended up
punishing the family as well.
Yes.
After 800 years of suffering,
something new expressed Thomas Aquinas.
What was his opinion on suicide?
- He rejected it for three reasons.
- How could it be otherwise?
Firstly, suicide is unnatural.
Every being loves itself by nature.
Therefore, suicide is a sin
against the natural instinct.
Secondly, it is a sin against society.
Thirdly, and this is the
most important argument,
life .. is a gift from God.
Only He alone may make
the decision about life and death.
Oh, well.
Oh, well?
The first argument is nonsense.
[is unnatural]
There is no unconditional will
to live in humans.
Suicide is always a violation
against the community.
Don't people often kill themselves
precisely because
they can't cope with the community?
That may be true, but it's still wrong.
It is a person's duty to serve the community.
Perhaps a community
that also desires these services.
The third argument was
the most important. [ gift of God ]
- It applies without limit.
- Another absolute.
God gave life, and only
He may take it away again.
Just as the beginning of life
is beyond an individuals control,
so too is the ending.
Your life is God's a gift to you.
- Gifts may be returned.
- No, only God may do that.
It is a strange gift.
Here they proclaim that God alone
reigns over life and death.
Humans must not intervene.
They quote the Pope and the Bible,
stating that life is a gift to us.
And now we can extend our own lives.
In the 19th century,
life expectancy was 40 years.
It has since risen to 71,
in developed countries, to 81 years.
In the past,
one-third of children died
before their 5th birthday.
Today it's only 10 percent.
The reason is not
that God has become nicer,
but because of the progress
of medicine and enlightenment.
But given their line of argument and
their assaults on Gods sovereignty,
I find that absurd.
You wouldnt claim that
resuscitation or a pacemaker
infringes on Gods rights, would you?
You're twisting everything.
I have the feeling that
your real issue lies elsewhere.
Didn't Augustine also wrote,
that man, as a soldier of Christ,
should not desert?
That's right, yes.
That means he must endure
all misery and not give up?
Yes, that's right.
Man must be strong
and not die in sin.
Where does this idea
of sin come from?
Your rejection of assisted suicide
is incomprehensible
without this concept.
Sin is the transgression
of a divine commandment.
I thought Jesus Christ has
already died for our sins.
To redeem us from them.
And we must be redeemed,
because there is an original sin.
The original sin separated
humanity from God.
The separation is healed
again through Christ.
Adam and Eve committed it,
they ate of the forbidden fruit.
God's punishment, man must suffer
misery and become mortal.
But God condemned Adam, Eve,
and also their descendants.
That's what is meant
by original sin, yes.
Now, explain me this.
Does not God accept punishment
to presuppose personal guilt?
The original sin is a condition,
not a personal act,
we are born with it.
The story of Adam and Eve
is not a reality,
but a symbol for humanity itself.
A very cruel one.
If I understand correctly,
Jesus Christ allows himself to be
nailed to the cross for this sin.
We will never fully understand it.
Furthermore, God bears
the responsibility for this first sin.
He planted the tree of knowledge
and created the evil serpent.
Button line, he set
the conditions for the first sin.
Then he allowed himself to be
crucified in the form of Christ,
and thus forgave us the sin
that he himself caused.
That sounds insane, doesn't it?
If God wanted to forgive us our sins,
why didn't he just do it?
Why this whole
complicated, cruel, illogical
and above all, sad story?
And if I may say so,
what is the purpose of these sins?
Besides making people's
lives miserable?
God doesn't do that,
you should stop being so rude.
It's a vicious circle!
Let me rephrase the question.
I hope I don't sound rude again.
Isn't it right for human beings
to strive for happiness and
to avoid suffering?
Isn't that his essence, his nature?
Isn't human suffering
something .. utterly meaningless?
I ...
Mr. Bishop?
To live is to suffer.
Excuse me?
Life means suffering, Mr. Biegler!
Christianity,
if you consider it seriously,
is the religion of suffering.
I know it's difficult,
doesn't fit into modern times.
You are right about many things.
The Enlightenment was right
about many things.
The words of Augustine
and Thomas Aquinas
no longer convince people today.
People hardly understand
these words anymore.
But there is faith.
My faith.
Suffering
is terrible,
often almost unbearable, yes.
But the suffering of a Christian
believer is never a punishment.
His suffering has nothing
to do with revenge.
It is .. yes, it is purification!
Purification?
Yes.
Mr. Biegler, you
have campaigned against Section 217
and you have achieved your goal.
But do you really know
the spirits youre summoning?
Do you really know what it means?
Tell me.
For two years now,
almost every day
a young woman
came to my church.
She always sat in the same seat.
She didn't kneel, pray,
light a candle.
And ?
I spoke to her because
she piqued my curiosity.
What did she say?
She was 31 years old.
Six years ago,
at 25, she ran over a child.
A little boy.
He died instantly.
She couldn't help it,
he emerged from between the cars.
She wasn't charged, but
she couldn't take it anymore.
Her life collapsed.
She was in a clinic.
She,
she went into therapy
and took medication.
She separated from
her husband and her friends.
She took a job,
the most mindless job,
because she did not want to
or could not think anymore.
I see.
This young woman
wants to die.
She said her life is over.
And she told me something
that
I can't get out of my mind.
She said:
"Everyone has forgiven me,
but I can't forgive myself."
Mr. Gartner, how old are you?
Me?
- 78.
- 78, yes.
You surely still have a few good years
left that you want to throw away.
Please, forgive me.
That's sad enough, but
this young woman has
a whole life ahead.
She can remarry, have children.
She can be happy again.
Now I ask you, Mr. Biegler,
and everybody present,
ladies and gentlemen:
Are going to lend that which
will end this young woman's life?
Do you really want to
give a 31-year-old a drug
that will kill her?
That's not the question.
A suicide victim who
rebels against suffering
rebels against the meaning
of his own life.
Modern society believes that
happiness is the meaning of life;
and only those who decide about
their own death are truly free.
But that is fundamentally false.
I
believe in Jesus Christ.
In the man who took up the cross.
To bear this cross is
the true meaning of our lives.
True freedom is found only
by yielding oneself to the will of God.
We cannot fall from His hand.
You are right, Mr. Biegler.
The Christian faith is
not rational or enlightened,
it is not logical,
it recognizes no compromise.
It requires of us what today
can barely be voiced, grasped.
Namely,
to bear life
with all its sorrows,
even to the last breath,
and from that burden
distill its purpose.
Mr. Bishop, your
confession impressed me.
And I believe
I also understand you a little.
But,
forgive me,
your confession
presupposes a very specific belief
in a very specific God.
Yes.
It does.
I have no further questions.
Thank you very much.
We concluded the hearing
with the words of Bishop Thiel.
Thank you very much,
Professor Litten,
Professor Sperling,
Bishop Thiel
and Dr. Brandt for your time.
We now proceed to the
closing addresses by Dr. Keller.
and Mr. Biegler.
- Please, Dr. Keller.
- Thank you.
When the Supreme Court in the
USA ruled on euthanasia,
it was a difficult
and an interesting case.
Six philosophers explained to
the court in a letter,
that the liberal state must stay out
of moral and religious debates
because it is solely the right of the
citizen to decide how to live and die.
The philosophers asserted that
the decision about dying
must be free from:
"The imposition of any religious
or philosophical requirements
by the judiciary or legislature."
This is the argument
presented by Mr. Gartner.
It sounds more attractive
and modern than that of Bishop Thiel.
It is the spirit of the times and
many share the philosophers' opinion.
We have the greatest personal
freedom that has ever existed.
We live more independently
and self-determined,
than any generation before us.
People now want to end their
lives in a self-determined way,
with medical assistance.
Self-determination is
a deeply important value.
No one doubts that.
But the human heart also hungers
for love, for protection,
and for the warmth of community.
We depend on each other
from birth to death.
The decision to live is
a highly personal one
and the state must stay out of it.
But this interdependence commands us
not help the person
wishing to commite suicide,
but try and prevent him
from doing so.
This commandment is
much older than our laws.
It stands above our laws,
because it is what originally
gave rise to our community.
Only if we stand for
the life of the other,
until their natural death,
can we exist as a genuine
human community.
Any who helps is essentially saying,
it's right that you're no longer alive.
And that's a terrible statement
because it destroys
our moral foundation.
I hope that the right to help
does not become an obligation.
I know solidarity is not a concept
that fits into modern life.
But without it, without solidarity,
we lose what makes us who we are,
humans.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Dr. Keller.
Mr. Biegler, please.
In a few years, we will all be dead.
Most will die from a
cardiovascular disease,
many others, from cancer.
Our lives will probably end
in a hospital.
Only one in five of us
will die in a care facility.
And only a quarter, where
most people want to die,
at home.
Ladies and gentlemen,
if you lean back for a moment,
you will notice that there is
only one question here.
It's not about aiding and abetting,
about failure to render assistance,
about assisted suicide
or any other term
that lawyers have conceived.
It's only about a single,
very simple and clear question.
This question,
ladies and gentlemen, is:
To whom does our life belong.
Does it belong to a god,
to the state, society,
to family, friends,
or does it belong to ourselves.
In my 20 years as
a criminal defense lawyer
I have come
to one conclusion.
Human beings are ambivalent beings.
We are all good and evil
at the same time,
yet we still form
a somewhat plausible whole.
It's no different with our society.
It is not homogeneous,
it is divided.
It is contradictory,
multifaceted and completely divided.
Today we believe
in God, Allah, Buddha,
in the Flying Spaghetti Monster,
or just in ourselves.
But what unites us,
in all our supposed enlightenment,
is the enduring mystery that
right and wrong will forever elude
our final understanding.
No verdict on this world
is ever absolute.
Ladies and gentlemen, I admit,
I am no philosopher.
And yet I wonder whether
it is not exactly this
that touches the essence of
our European, our Western society?
Not a forced consensus, but the courage
to withstand peaceful disagreement?
I am grateful for the ruling of
the Federal Constitutional Court.
This ruling is enlightening.
Enlightenment in the best,
in the truest sense.
It is life-affirming,
because it knows about death.
It is humane, because
it understands the suffering.
After centuries in darkness,
we can finally be free.
We need not be afraid of the freedom
people claim for themselves.
On September 22, 2007
the writer Andr Gorz
and his wife took their own lives.
Two years earlier,
he wrote a letter to his wife.
Allow me to quote briefly from it.
"You just turned 82.
And you are still beautiful,
graceful, desirable.
We have lived together for 58 years
and I love you more than ever.
I recently fell in love
with you all over again.
Once again I carry
this emptiness in my chest,
the only warmth of your body
that can fill mine.
At nights, I sometimes see
the figure of a man
walking along an empty street
behind a hearse.
That man is me.
And it is you
whom the hearse takes away.
I don't want to be present
at your cremation.
I don't want a vessel with your ashes.
I listen to your breath,
my hand touches you.
None among us wishes to bear
the sorrow of outliving the other."
Ladies and gentlemen,
Whose claim but ours
may lay hold upon our death?
Thank you.
Do you think to be right
that Mr. Gartner
gets sodium pentobarbital
in order to kill himself?
We need to ask ourselves
this question.
The Federal Constitutional Court has
declared that there is no difference
whether a healthy or
a terminally ill person wants to die.
A doctor can assist in suicide,
but he is not obligated to do so.
The legislature may later
prevent abuse
and test free will.
But for us here and now,
we are only concerned
with the fundamental,
ethical question.
Do you think it is right
to give a healthy person
a lethal drug?
Would you do it,
if you were a doctor?
Would you administer sodium
pentobarbital to Mr. Gartner,
if you knew that
it would kill him?
Mr. Gartner is 78.
Would you give the medication
to a 30-year-old woman?
Each of you can answer
according to your ethical
and moral beliefs.
It's only about your personal
belief, not the law.
We are not in the courtroom.
Mr. Gartner, we have
dedicated all this time
discussing your personal wish to die.
Would you like to add
something else?
I would like to thank you
for listening my case.
I hope you will reflect on this case.
I am convinced that things improve
when they are discussed openly and freely.
That's all.
Thank you, Mr. Gartner.
The discussion about this difficult
topic has only just begun.
The outcome remains uncertain.
Mr. Biedler asked, to whom
our life and death belongs.
I cannot answer that on your behalf,
but I am certain that it is our state,
our society and our future,
that are at stake in this debate.
Elisabeth Garner besought
her husband to act aright,
yet who among us can say
what right may be?
Ladies and gentlemen,
thank you very much.
So ends, for this day, the gathering
of the Council of Ethics.
After the film aired on ARD in Germany,
viewers were invited to vote
on the central ethical question:
Should Mr. Gartner be allowed
to receive Pentobarbital to end his life?
70% voted YES
(public TV vote) - DerStandard
For the theatre version of GOTT,
about 61.9% YES across theatre audiences.
gott.theater
from German text and audio
Playing God
German National Library of Science
and Humanities, Berlin
Meeting of the German Ethics Council
May I ask for silence?
I open today's meeting
of the Ethics Council.
Thank you very much for coming.
The Council acts on its own initiative.
This concerns the following case:
Richard Gartner, whom I welcome here,
requested from
the Federal Institute for Drugs
a dose of sodium pentobarbital.
The drug is used for euthanasia
in other countries.
Mr. Gartner stated that he wanted
to take his own life.
What is unusual is that
Mr. Gartner is not terminally ill,
but perfectly healthy.
Nevertheless, he wants
to take his own life.
That's sick!
No interruptions!
We will hear all arguments.
The Federal Institute refused
to release the medication.
Thereupon, Mr. Gartner asked
his family doctor
for assistance in his suicide.
So much for the facts.
Should a doctor assist a person
in committing suicide?
Would that be ethically right?
We will discuss this today.
We have invited Mr. Gartner
and his lawyer, Mr. Biegler.
Three experts will assist us.
Professor Litten, Faculty of Law.
Professor Sperling
from the German Medical Association.
Bishop Thiel.
And Dr. Brandt,
Mr. Gartner's family doctor.
Ladies and gentlemen,
your opinion will also
be taken into account.
As members of the Ethics Council
you are independent.
Your advice is intended to help
with an important ethical question.
Should a person, like Mr. Gartner,
have the right
to end his life
with the help of a doctor?
Let us begin.
Mr. Gartner,
thank you for making
your case public.
Please, describe your request.
I want to die.
Why?
You're not sick, are you?
No, no.
Apart of a few minor ailments
of old age, I'm quite healthy.
Then why do you want to die?
I don't want to live anymore.
Would you explain it?
I am 78 years old.
I was married for 42 years.
My wife,
Elisabeth,
died three years ago.
What did she die of?
Brain tumor.
As big as a ping-pong ball.
In a clinic.
What did you do for a living?
I,
I was an architect.
When did you stop working?
After Elisabeth's death.
- Do you have children?
- Yes.
Two sons.
And three grandchildren.
Does your family know
about your wish to die?
Yes, of course, the children.
Since Elisabeth's death,
we've discussed this again and again.
All the arguments, up and down.
They have,
well,
accepted it.
The grandchildren
are still very young.
What has changed for you
since your wife died?
Everything.
Elisabeth and I
used to go to
charitable organizations,
cultural associations,
to theaters,
to concerts,
to art openings, to invitations.
We traveled a lot.
We wanted to see the whole world.
I gave all that up.
Alone,
I can't do that.
I miss her.
I miss her when I wake up,
when I fall asleep.
I miss her in everything I do.
Everything I see.
She's gone.
And I'm still here.
That's not right.
That's not right.
Not after 42 years.
Is it impossible to find
meaning in life again
through your grandchildren?
My grandchildren are wonderful, but
I can't
I can't.
You see, since Elisabeth's death
I'm only half the person I used to be.
No, that's not true.
I have lost touch with myself,
completely lost touch with myself.
I just want to die in peace.
I understand.
- Any more questions, Dr. Keller?
- Thank you.
Mr. Biegler, perhaps?
Richard,
why don't you want a
completely normal death?
Life means nothing to me anymore.
I don't want to end up in
a hospital, hooked up to tubes.
I don't want to become demented,
but rather die properly.
The way I lived.
Tell us of Elisabeth's death.
She died in a hospital.
Yes.
Did she suffer?
For a year and a half.
Pain, incapacitation,
falls with fractures.
Helplessly.
Confusion.
All which one fears.
She was in a very bad state.
And...
Please, forgive me, but
in the end, she asked
the doctors for redemption.
That's what she called it, yes.
She was a believer.
Did she receive any medication?
No.
She asked me
to get her something,
to end her suffering.
I couldn't do it.
I didn't even know how.
The doctors gave her
a lot of morphine at some point.
Did she die peacefully?
I don't know.
I don't know, it still pains me.
I was only out for half an hour.
When I came back, she was dead.
Please, don't ask any more.
There's one more thing
you have to say.
Why are you here?
Elisabeth was always very committed.
She was a very political person.
Shortly before she died,
she asked me
in the hospital:
"Do it right."
"Your suicide is meant to
point beyond it."
Elisabeth wanted me
to solve the problem
that made her suffer for so long.
This problem, which now
is tormenting me,
by making it public.
That's why I'm here.
I want
everyone to understand that
it's OK my desire to die.
I want people
like me to get HELP.
I want to die.
And
it is not immoral,
it is not selfish, either.
And not sick.
I have no more questions.
Thank you very much.
- I know how difficult this is.
- Yes ?
Dr. Brandt, please.
Dr. Brandt,
is Mr. Gartner your patient?
Yes.
Mr. Gartner asked you
to help him suicide?
One year after his wife's death,
it was the first time.
After the Federal Institute
denied his request for medication
he came to me.
We discussed about it, but
Mr. Gartner could not be dissuaded.
What is your opinion on
Mr. Gartner's wish to die?
I do not want to assist in a suicide.
Furthermore, I also doubt whether
it would be right for other doctors
to help their patients with this.
You don't see he has depression!
Dr. Brandt,
does Mr. Gartner suffer from depression?
No, he's just sad.
I have two short expert opinions
that confirm Ms. Brandt's statement.
From a psychologist and a psychiatrist.
According to the expert opinions,
Mr. Gartner is neither mentally ill,
nor is there a disorder
that would prevent him
from asserting his values.
Dr. Brandt, are there any doubts
about the experts' qualifications?
No.
Do you know if Mr. Gartner's wish
was influenced by anyone?
That is not in his character.
One of his sons tried
to persuade him out of it.
One last question.
Did you talk to Mr. Gartner about
other methods of suicide?
- I advised him against it.
- Why?
I worked in an emergency room.
There you could see many
failed suicide attempts.
Describe some.
Let's take hanging.
Statistically, over 50% of
the suicide attempts by hanging
often fail.
The rope breaks, beams or
other supports give way.
People who survive
suffer severe, irreparable injuries.
Other suicide attempts
also often fail.
For example?
People who jump from buildings and
end up paralyzed from the waist down.
Other people try to kill themselves
with a car accident and injure others.
People end up with
their lower jaw...
Thank you, no more questions.
Thank you very much, Dr. Brandt.
We hear the experts.
Professor Litten, please!
As you know, it is
the Ethics Council's mandate to
present our questions publicly,
and thus promote public discussion.
Dr. Keller, a long-standing member
of the Council, is prepared to
conduct the expert interviews.
Please!
Thank you.
Ms. Litten.
You are a professor of constitutional
law at the Free University of Berlin.
You wrote expert opinions
for the government.
You were chair of the "German
Association of Constitutional Law"
and you are a constitutional
judge in Brandenburg.
Correct, yes.
Can you describe the legal situation
regarding assisted suicide?
Suicide is not considered a crime
because a homicide requires
the death of another person.
In the case of suicide or attempt
suicide, the only question is
whether and how someone assisting
is liable to prosecution.
Does this depend on
what the helper does?
Yes, exactly.
There are four forms
of euthanasia:
active euthanasia,
indirect euthanasia,
assisted suicide,
and passive euthanasia, today
called withdrawal of treatment.
Please, describe them.
Active means that death is
actively brought about.
The doctor administers
the lethal injection.
It is forbidden;
it is called euthanasia.
In what is now called
withdrawal of treatment
the physician knowingly forgoes
life-prolonging measures
or discontinues any measure.
It is required
the patient's request
in written form.
In indirect euthanasia,
the life-shortening effect
of a medication is accepted.
Say, the pain of a terminally ill
person is relieved with morphine.
Morphine also has a life-shortening
effect above a certain dose.
This is permitted
if the patient requests it.
Is the legal framework around
assisted suicide complicated?
No, because our penal code,
that came into effect
in 1872 in Bismarck's time,
does not prohibit such assistance.
Forty years ago, it was decided
that aiding and abetting suicide
would be exempt from punishment,
if the person assisting
saves him immediately.
I don't understand.
I'll try to explain
with an example.
The wife is allowed to give
her husband the rope
with which he will hang himself.
He hangs himself from the beam.
But she must
cut him down immediately.
Otherwise, she will be charged
with failure to render assistance.
It won't do her any good
if she runs away immediately.
She must be so far away
that she can't get back.
- That sounds absurd.
- Yes, it does.
It's hard to imagine, pha
that an accomplice would be
charged and convicted.
But it couldn't be ruled out.
I am allowed to hand
the suicide victim the pistol,
but I must save him immediately.
I am not allowed to shoot him, either.
That is generally correct,
but in 2015 a new law was passed.
What did the law say?
In this new provision in Section 217
of the German Criminal Code, it states,
that he will be punished who,
I quote:
"... with the intention of
promoting the suicide of another,
commercially provided,
arranged, or arranged
the opportunity for this purpose."
Who was affected?
Assisted dying organizations
and palliative care physicians.
What are palliative care physicians?
These are doctors who treat
patients with short life expectancy.
Thank you.
According to this law
close relatives were allowed
to provide assistance,
but assisted dying organizations and
palliative care physicians were not.
The law contradicted
our constitution.
The right to privacy also includes
the right to self-determined death.
The citizen has the freedom
to take his own life,
and to seek help for doing so.
The decision to take one's own life,
is to be respected as an act
of autonomous self-determination.
Therefore,
the Federal Constitutional Court
rightly declared Section 217
null and void in 2020.
Please!
Silence, please!
Professor, doesn't
the constitution protect citizens?
From what? The right to kill
oneself is a fundamental right.
I mean, assisted
suicide organizations.
Companies that, for profit,
drive people to suicide.
Yes, such excesses must be banned.
But in Switzerland, these are
non-profit organizations.
They do not generate
financial profits.
Can the legislature
forbid it anyway?
- No.
- No?
No, it can only regulate it.
But does it check whether a
person genuinely wants to die?
- Whether the wish is permanent?
- Yes, the state can do that.
It can check whether assisted
suicide associations are reliable.
It can regulate the duty
to inform and report.
Counseling is also mandatory.
The legislature must grant
its approval regardless of whether
- it is an incurable illness.
- Yes.
To put it another way,
does Mr. Gartner have a right
to a lethal medication?
Yes, he does.
But the doctor decides freely
whether to help.
How is this handled
in other countries?
In Austria, active euthanasia
is a criminal offense.
It falls under the categories
of murder, euthanasia,
or assisted suicide.
In the Netherlands,
physician-assisted suicide is legal.
The physicians must
prepare a report.
This will be submitted
to a commission.
In case of doubt, the public
prosecutor's office will be contacted.
That would also be
conceivable in our case.
Doesn't criminal law
protect our lives?
Absolutely.
Assisting a suicide that
is not voluntary is punishable.
The constitution must not
patronize its citizens.
The state can't assist in a suicide.
True, but that's not the point.
The question is,
is the state allowed to interfere,
if a doctor wants to help
someone who wants to die?
What would be the consequences
if anyone
is allowed to kill himself
with medical assistance?
An 18-year-old with a broken heart
could request the medication.
Or a 20-year-old
who has lost his job.
As strange as this may sound,
there is no legal
obligation to live.
The obligation to live
cannot exist in a free state.
If you take free will seriously,
you are right.
Then you cannot legally distinguish
the suicidal wish of a young,
healthy person
from that of an old, sick person.
But of course it must be verified
whether a free decision of will exists.
In the case of a mentally
ill person, I would deny it.
But minors are also allowed
to kill themselves.
Belgium has a very liberal
assisted suicide law.
Minors are also allowed to
commit physician-assisted
suicide.
Has this ever happened?
Three such cases are known
from 2016 and 2017.
How old were the children?
There were two children
and a teenager.
They were 9, 11, and 17 years old.
- Was that really allowed?
- They were all terminally ill.
One suffered from a
severe metabolic disorder.
The other had brain tumors, the
third had fatal muscular dystrophy.
Their lives had become
nothing but torment.
They wanted to die.
The parents and the doctors
were consulted beforehand.
Their consent was,
of course, a prerequisite.
Does something like this
happen elsewhere?
Luxembourg and the Netherlands, yes.
This is a watershed moment.
Yes. But the Benelux countries are
just as rule-of-law-bound as we are.
The discussion we have
is still ongoing there.
If doctors do something like that,
it will lead to extremes.
We experienced it; think
of the Nazi euthanasia program.
They murdered 300,000 people
with physical
and mental disabilities.
They sterilized
over 400,000 people.
10,000 children with hereditary
diseases and disabilities were killed
in so-called children wards.
The goal was the extermination
of the so-called "unworthy life".
Those were murders. Killings
against the will of those affected.
This has nothing to do
with our discussion.
Oh, it does!
It all starts innocently enough.
It was about murders for
the alleged good of society.
We are discussing the
complete opposite here:
the self-determination
of a responsible citizen.
Yes, but that is
how it always starts.
The physician Leo Alexander,
who observed the trials
against the Nazi doctors,
wrote that it had become clear
to all trial observers,
I quote:
"that these crimes began small.
At the beginning, subtle shifts
occurred among the doctors.
It began with the
fundamental understanding,
that there are situations
that are no longer worth living.
At first, this attitude only
applied to the seriously ill.
But gradually,
this category was expanded
and the socially unproductive,
the ideologically undesirable,
the racially undesirable
were included." End quote.
Even back then, it started harmlessly
and only later led to the murders.
How would the individual
be protected in the future?
One can check whether
a death wish is sincere,
whether it is well-considered,
or whether it has been influenced.
That is false.
Through such universally
valid assumptions, we will make
death negotiable.
Then we will also
negotiate killing.
There are people
who want to kill themselves.
Think of Dr. Brandt's case.
Or the numerous
suicides on railway tracks.
They are terrible!
Nevertheless, doctors are not
allowed to assist healthy people
in committing suicide.
Whether a doctor wants
to help his patient,
the law cannot answer.
This must be answered according
to ethical and moral principles.
This was decided by
the Federal Constitutional Court.
We deeply regret
if someone wants to kill himself.
We must try to change his mind.
But if we fail,
we must respect and
accept his free decision.
Thank you.
No further questions.
Thank you, Dr. Keller.
Please, Mr. Biegler.
- You may remain seated.
- Thank you, I prefer to stand.
My name is Biegler,
I am a lawyer.
I represent
Mr. Gartner's interests.
I know who you are.
From where?
From the trials
in which you defended
in the court where I am a judge.
Well, I do what I can.
You stated that
the medical decision
should be made according
to ethical and moral principles.
Yes.
You mean according
to Christian values?
Yes, but not necessarily.
Can you clarify?
The Basic Law states that the
freedom of belief and conscience
and the freedom of
religious belief are inviolable.
Furthermore, the undisturbed
practice of religion is guaranteed.
What does that mean?
That everyone can believe
whatever he wants.
Is the Christian faith
not given preferential treatment?
According to the Federal Constitutional
Court, the preferential treatment
of a certain religious
denomination is prohibited.
We often read that our state is
based on Christian values.
The constitution also
refers to God.
According to the preamble,
the Basic Law was
enacted with responsibility
before God and humankind.
This is the case in many countries.
Does the state not thereby
profess Christianity?
No.
Legal scholars assume
that mentioning God
is an expression of humility.
- Humility?
- Yes.
The Basic Law was drafted
after World War II.
No one wanted
a Nazi state ever again.
What does that
have to do with God?
Every totalitarian state
sees itself as an absolute state.
The state is an end in itself.
The fathers of
the Basic Law rejected this.
They also knew that
the constitution is flawed.
There is no perfect state order.
But knowing that a human
beings actions are limited,
that is humility; that is why
God is mentioned in the preamble.
The Basic Law therefore
does not impose Christianity.
It is not a decision in favor
of a Christian state.
Christian values have
no binding force
here in our discussion.
That's correct.
Thank you.
We will hear Bishop Thiel
talk about Christian values.
Good.
Dr. Keller has just talked about
the now-permitted assisted suicide
causing a dam break.
In which countries
is there such a regulation?
Liberal euthanasia laws
exist in Switzerland,
Belgium, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands,
in Canada and in the USA:
In Oregon, Washington,
Vermont, Colorado, and California.
In Sweden, it is permitted if
the helper is a private individual.
What is the experience there?
For example, in Switzerland?
There are six assisted suicide
organizations there.
"Exit" is the largest,
it has 120,000 members.
How often has the organization
provided assisted suicide?
Since its founding in 1982,
in more than 3,000 cases.
Have there been any rulings
against doctors or hospice workers
since the founding?
No, but every death is investigated.
How is assisted suicide
regulated there by law?
It is not punishable unless it is
carried out for selfish motives.
- Is that all?
- In terms of legal regulations, yes.
But "Exit" still requires
the patient's capacity to act,
the autonomy of the wish to die
and a serious illness
with unbearable suffering.
What is the role of the doctors?
They prescribe
sodium pentobarbital,
in a lethal dose: 15 grams.
Swiss physicians are likewise bound
by their professional ethics,
but they possess a margin of discretion
that the Swiss Medical
Association respects.
How old are the patients?
On average, 76 years old
and 50% have cancer.
I read that Germans are
killing themselves in Switzerland.
Yes, that's right.
The organization "Dignitas"
offers assisted suicide
for foreigners.
In 2017, about 71 Germans
took their own lives there.
Since the association's founding,
a total of 1,150 Germans
have died by assisted suicide.
Did assisted suicide cause
the "break of the dam"
that Dr. Keller lamented?
Switzerland and Germany have
the same number of suicides.
There was also no significant
increase in the Netherlands.
In light of these figures,
talk of a dam breaking is misguided.
Thank you.
I have no further questions.
Thank you,
Professor Litten.
I now welcome
Professor Sperling.
Thank you for taking the time.
Of course.
Are you on the board
of the German Medical Association?
On the executive committee.
Please, explain to
the council members,
what the German
Medical Association does.
The umbrella organization of the
profession's self-governing bodies.
It represents the professional policy
interests of German physicians.
Thank you.
- Please, ask your questions.
- Thank you.
Please, explain your opinion on
physician-assisted suicide.
Our understanding is simple.
Even non-physicians here are surely
familiar with the Hippocratic Oath.
The physician's pledge.
Hippocrates was a Greek physician.
The first formulation of medical
ethics was named after him.
Even in ancient times, the oath
forbade administering lethal substances.
This has not changed to this day.
Can you further explain?
A doctor's task is
to preserve life,
protect health,
alleviate suffering,
and provide support to the dying.
What about assisted suicide?
That's not end-of-life care;
doctors aren't allowed to do that.
It contradicts the oath.
- Were your members consulted?
- Yes, the vast majority rejects it.
62% is not a large majority.
No interruptions, please.
Let us maintain proper decorum, OK?
We heard that everyone has
the right to die with dignity.
Yes, I have a big problem with that.
With what?
To believe in the patient's
free self-determination.
Why?
Studies in Europe and the USA
on suicide have shown that
most people who commit suicide
have serious mental disorders.
90 to 95% of people who commit
suicide had mental illnesses.
But we can help. Depression
can be treated effectively today.
It has been shown that
after a depressive phase,
the desire to die vanishes.
People find their way back to life.
It would be cynical for a doctor
to assist in these type of situations.
He should heal, not kill.
Does the image of the doctor change,
when he administers a lethal drug?
Yes, of course.
A doctor who helps to kill destroys
the relationship of trust.
This relationship of trust is
the basis of all treatments.
What does that mean for a patient?
Every patient can be sure
that the doctor follows the rules.
He knows he will not kill him.
Without such fundamental
rules, there is no trust.
Why is trust jeopardized when
the doctor provides assistance?
Only if a doctor is
never allowed to kill,
does the patient have
ultimate certainty.
What does this mean
for end-of-life care?
We provide assistance
in and during dying.
We can discontinue
life-sustaining measures,
if the patient requests it.
But it is a catastrophe,
if we are to provide
assistance in dying.
No doctor is obligated to do it.
I would like to talk
about Mr. Gartner.
He is not mentally ill.
He doesn't need attention,
he just wants to die.
Yes, but why?
I can't judge from a distance.
Most people are afraid
of hospitals, of pain,
of loneliness.
- We have to do something about that.
- For example?
Offer palliative care
to the population.
Today we can eliminate suffering
and pain at the end of life,
and thus enable a dignified
death in a hospice or at home.
This costs a lot of money,
but it is necessary.
But Mr. Gartner wants,
as he said earlier,
to die peacefully, not on
life support and not helpless.
Yes, I can only repeat,
I don't know Mr. Gartner.
But apparently,
he distrusts medicine.
That's understandable,
but think about hospices,
the number of volunteers,
the palliative care physicians,
the nursing staff, whose task
is to alleviate suffering.
To claim that only physician-
assisted suicide is worthy,
is a slap in the face to those
who care for the terminally ill.
Is a dignified death
possible in hospices?
Yes, precisely there.
Thank you very much.
Please, Mr. Biegler.
I don't understand.
What is that?
The difference you make.
If a patient requests
to discontinue treatment,
- you help him.
- Yes, I am obligated to do so.
The patient takes the decision.
But giving him a means to
suicide is wrong.
Yes.
- I don't understand that.
- Let me explain.
Withdrawing treatment
is an omission.
Administering a remedy
is an active act.
But aren't both actions
in essence the same?
When discontinuing treatment,
you turn off machines,
you stop assisted nutrition.
You are active, as you say.
Bu .. bu .. but in the case
of assistance, I cause death.
Whereas in the case of
discontinuation, I accept it.
In discontinuation, death is not
an unintended side effect.
Letting die is the goal.
No, death is never our goal.
One thing is to die
from an incurable illness,
and another from poisoning.
If we assist in dying,
it will change society
and the way we die.
Who says that?
The German Medical Association,
the World Medical Association.
Predictions are difficult,
when they concern the future.
Mr. Lawyer, please,
do not play with words.
To conjure up a danger
is not to refute something.
Well, I'll try a different approach.
Why will society change?
If we have to offer such
a service in the future,
there will be a corresponding
item in the fee list.
Euthanasia: 146.80
We will need training.
Professors will hold
seminars on killing.
This is no longer a fringe area,
this is right in the heart of society.
Our Supreme Court
decided it that way.
What's wrong with that?
Good.
Does the "Ulm Memorandum"
mean anything to you?
That was a doctors' protest in 1964
against the new birth control pill.
140 doctors and professors
signed it.
The pill would lead
to public sexualization.
The doctor became, quote:
"servant of self-indulgence."
The pill could only
be prescribed to married women.
Yes, .. I don't defend that.
We're talking about something else.
Really? Many of your colleagues
at the time argued like you.
They saw, quote:
"a weakening of social morality,
which would lead the population
to fall into immorality."
- Yes, that was an exaggeration.
- The prediction was wrong.
The result was not immorality,
but a society without embarrassment.
Yes, that was a development.
- Development? Just like today.
- But today we have data.
Since medical aid has been
legalized in Oregon,
between 1998 and 2014
the cases increased by 700%
That sounds terrible, professor.
700% increase!
I will tell you
the number of cases.
Last year, 218 patients
were prescribed lethal medication.
Only 143 committed suicide.
So, it seems very reassuring
to have such a prescription.
The numbers are still alarming.
Are you serious?
One year earlier,
it was 138 people.
In the 20 years since
this law was passed,
only 1,275 people
committed suicide with
the help of doctors.
That's 700%?
Not even 70 people a year?
You have to extrapolate
the numbers to Germany.
You want us to think that,
let's say, in case of a fire
everyone will run to the
emergency exit, sure.
The fact that many people will
run to the emergency exit
is similar to the fact that many
people will commit suicide?
That's nonsense!
Emergency exit saves lives,
suicide brings death.
Your metaphor using emergency exit
and assitance is correct.
But ...
Well!
Again, the Hippocratic Oath...
The Hippocratic Oath! I forgot it!
When does a doctor take the oath?
During medical school?
Or in the medical licensing process?
He does not take oath.
Are you claiming an oath
you didnt swear?
The oath embodies the ethical
moral consensus of all physicians.
Is that so? Doesn't this
2000-year-old oath also state,
- one may not operate on a bladder stone?
- Yes, that's an exaggeration.
Or that one may not give
a woman an abortifacient?
Yes, but there is a modern version
of the physicians' oath:
The Declaration of Geneva.
Can you tell us the poison
passage from the oath?
The sentence reads:
"I will not give poison to anyone,
even at his request."
Is this also in the modern version
which is valid today?
A doctor may never give
poison to his patient?
- No.
- No?
So this passage, so important to you,
is missing? Like the bladder stone?
Please, Mr. Lawyer,
please!
But something else
is added in the modern version:
I quote, "I will respect the
autonomy and dignity of my patient".
Yes.
Isn't assisted suicide precisely
about autonomy and dignity?
That's not the meaning
of the paragraph.
The German Medical Association
has again clearly stated that
a doctor's action is unethicall
if he provides suicide assistance.
Isn't that a contradiction?
When a doctor can no longer
improve a patient's living condition,
doesn't his ethics then have
to allow assisted suicide?
A doctor cannot serve death.
I will not be forced to do so!
Nobody wants that.
You decide whether you want
to help a patient in this.
It's about whether doctors are
allowed to help, not obligated.
You don't want to understand me.
Understand you? Is it better
to talk about guns, knives, ropes,
or other gruesome madness?
Dr. Brandt made
a presentation earlier.
Earlier, you mentioned that
doctor-assisted suicide
would damage the trust between
doctor and patient.
Yes, the patient loses trust.
I would trust a doctor who helps me.
Even to die.
You believe that medicine is
a neutral activity,
a mere service. But it
is also a moral profession.
A doctor has a responsibility
for a patient.
Therefore, a better answer
to your questions is
offering palliative assitance.
Other doctors declare that
the last service to a person
is an act of the deepest respect,
of the highest humanity.
I heard the screams of people in
palliative care units 20 years ago.
Things are different today.
No one has to suffer anymore.
We can relieve almost
everyone's pain.
- Almost everyone?
- Yes, the desire to die disappears.
I know.
What if your art fails?
Palliative care
cannot always help.
Yes, almost always.
Why, then, are there patients in
palliative care who still want to die?
That's rare.
20% of palliative care patients
want to die. That's 20%
That's not exactly rare.
And you know, professor,
that the windows of cancer
wards are often barred.
But, even if you were right,
aren't there too few
palliative care units?
Yes, that is correct.
We urgently need to increase them.
How many doctors in Germany
are palliative care physicians?
Currently, about 3 %.
3% ?
Yes.
What is the benefit
of a painless death
that can only be offered
to a few patients?
- This will take decades.
- Yes.
But insisting on a quick solution,
in my opinion, is wrong.
Are you aware of the conclusions
from the last reputable surveys?
60 to 70% want a doctor to
assist them in committing suicide.
According to a 2003 survey, 84%
agreed with the following statement:
"If my doctor helps
a patient to commit suicide,
I will continue to trust him."
The opposite of what you declared.
Once again, we are concerned with
the patient's healing.
That is the essence of Medicine.
Doctor-assisted suicide blocks
an adequate treatment.
And yes, I'm familiar with the surveys.
But they are not compatible
with our medical ethos.
But you know that in Feb. 2020,
there was applause,
when the Federal Constitutional Court
read its ruling on assisted suicide.
The chairman of your
German Medical Association
has declared,
that doctor-assisted suicide is
dirty practice for doctors.
Yes, that was in a different context.
Doctors are not mechanics of death.
Please, leave this task
to the plumbers.
This was meant to clarify
the difference between a service
and an adequate medical treatment.
Do you know what that means for me?
For me whose wife begged
the doctors to help her die.
My wife and I,
we lived our lives
as we thought was right.
Don't you think that
it's outrageous your view
to send us to plumbers?
No, but I think
it's outrageous,
that a doctor, like Dr. Brandt,
to help, a healthy person,
to commit suicide.
This is an ethical dilemma
for a physician.
YOUR DAMN ETHOS is not above
the ethos of society!
In this country we are free men.
We are allowed to control
our lifes and deaths.
Why don't you trust your patients?
What makes you think you have
any right to play God?
I have no further questions.
Ladies and gentlemen,
the discussion has gone too far.
I understand your anxiety,
but no one is being accused.
Despite the seriousness of the matter,
please, maintain decorum, okay? Good.
Thank you very much,
Professor Sperling.
Now we will hear Bishop Thiel
as the last expert.
- Good afternoon, Bishop Thiel.
- Good afternoon.
Can you briefly introduce yourself
to the members of the council?
I am a member of
the Faith Commission
of the German Bishops' Conference.
Please, can you explain?
We are responsible
on matters of faith,
and on ethical questions
of biology and medicine.
And the Bishops' Conference?
That's an association
of Catholic bishops.
Thank you, good.
Please, Dr. Keller.
Mr. Bishop.
What is the [Catholic] Church's
position on assisted suicide?
Let's first clarify
what we're talking about.
Namely?
From antiquity to
the Enlightenment,
for 2,500 years, there was a consensus
to reject such acts of violence
that end one's own life.
This wasn't just the case
in philosophy.
All major religions in various cultures,
Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
they still agree today.
The Christian Church continues
to serve as a guardian within society.
Sounds like "Game of Thrones".
Mr. Biegler, do I have
to remind you? Please!
Ignore that, Bishop.
Even those who deal most with death,
the doctors, reject assisted suicide.
What is your opinion?
I believe in life.
I believe in
the infinite value of life
in every moment of human existence.
Life is sacred,
it is in relationship with God.
And if you no longer like
the word "sacred" today,
take our constitution.
It protects life.
That is a constitutional value.
But another value
is self-determination.
Naturally.
Self-determination, freedom,
but
solidarity, care,
protection of life,
These are also values
we cannot afford to give up.
In our society, there is still
a taboo against killing, thank goodness!
And this prohibition
is now to be lifted.
I don't want that.
It should remain forbidden
to kill a human being.
We are not talking about killing.
It should remain a criminal offense.
We are discussing only whether
it is ethically right for a doctor
to assist in committing suicide.
Only?
There aren't any major differences
anymore, one thing leads to another.
It is not justifiable
to allow assisted suicide
while prohibiting euthanasia.
Why?
Imagine,
you can no longer commit
suicide yourself.
You cannot drink the drug
because you are paralyzed.
If only assisted suicide
is permitted,
you would not be allowed to ask
the doctor to kill you.
You are at a disadvantage
just because you
can no longer move.
I can already hear the lawyers!
Such unequal treatment
is unacceptable.
So, the path must be followed
to the very end.
We will soon be discussing
and allowing euthanasia.
If that's correct,
what would the consequences be?
Terrible!
Imagine if a person could no longer
express any will at all.
He is lying on the operating
table after an accident,
the doctors say he will wake up
with severe injuries.
Should we then investigate
the presumed will of the person?
Or think about a man with Alzheimer's.
Let's say your father.
Or your uncle.
He is cheerful.
He enjoys the sun,
sitting in the garden,
but he is no longer the same person
you knew when he was healthy.
Do you want to question if
it would be better
if he died?
He said he never wanted to live
like this. And so the discussion begins.
We are already judging whether
a life is valuable or not.
"Unworthy life"
was a Nazi expression,
we must never go back there.
You fear a change in society.
Not at all, it's not
an abstract prediction.
Assisted suicide is already legal.
This is a different society.
What is different?
Within a short time, the pressure
on elderly people will increase
to kill themselves.
The elderly will become
a burden to the young.
They cost money
and consume resources.
They will say:
"You have lived long enough,
your life becomes difficult
and youre difficult to deal with,
so yes, take advantage
of the recognized option
and commit suicide with
the help of your family doctor."
Freedom becomes coercion.
If we judge life by its usefulness,
we will soon be back to
"favorable public opinion"
and determine who we
do not want in our community,
the disabled, the depressed,
the elderly, the slow.
The real danger
of a dam breaking is here.
Self-determination.
Yes, the self-determination
enthusiasts!
They believe it is entirely up
to them whether they want to die.
But natural death is part of life.
One must not avoid it.
No one wants to forbid suicide.
But respecting it,
doesn't mean that society
has to condone it,
that there is an
obligation to assist.
It only means that we don't prevent
a person committing suicide.
Assisted suicide requires another,
an additional motive.
And, I cannot see any.
On the contrary.
On the contrary?
We all .. live in a community.
In a family, with friends,
in a state.
And, everyone who
lives in a community
also has a responsibility,
everyone.
So, you are saying that
life doesn't belong to us alone.
It doesn't. Suicide is driven
entirely by egoistic motives.
It is inconsiderate to others.
This goes beyond religion,
its fundamentally immoral.
But there are doctors
who want to help out of compassion.
For them, providing assistance
is an act of charity.
Killing can never be an act of love.
It destroys the foundation
of love, of life itself.
How many people genuinely kill
themselves by their own free choice?
There are other reasons:
Despair because
his company went bankrupt.
Emotional crises, mental illnesses.
They need comfort, not a
doctor to help them kill themselves.
And, if we talk about entitlements,
citizens have the right
to be protected by the state
and
to be allowed to grow old and die.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Mr. Biegler, please.
Mr. Bishop.
You mentioned the alleged
watchdog role of the Church.
Yes, and you interrupted me.
The Pope exhorted the Church
at the German Catholic Congress,
to fulfill its duty as guardian.
It should, and I quote:
"raise its voice for the protection
of life from conception
to natural death."
The quote is from
the Holy Father, yes.
The Pope refers to Isaiah 62:
"O Jerusalem, I have set
watchmen upon your walls,
who shall never be
silent day or night."
That is a beautiful
and powerful image.
Aah!
What are you getting at?
In 2018, at the plenary assembly
of the Catholic bishops,
a study was presented.
According to this study, 1,670
Catholic clergy members in Germany
sexually abused
about 3,677 male minors.
I know.
Half were under 13 years old.
The number of unreported cases is unknown.
In the USA, in Illinois alone,
almost 700 clergy members are
alleged to have abused children.
The victims have suffered
immense pain.
Do you understand what I mean?
In light of this, can your Church
still be credible on moral issues?
The Church did not sin,
but some members did.
Your Church can never be wrong!
There will always be sinners
in the Church, not just the flawless.
A theological commission headed
by Cardinal Ratzinger, who would
later become Pope, affirmed
"the Church cannot be considered
a sinner in the sense
of being the direct subject
or agent of sinful acts."
What does that mean?
You must distinguish between a church
of sinners and the Holy Church.
I don't understand.
Sin presupposes
free-acting persons.
That does not apply to
the Holy Church.
No one will be able
to understand that.
There is also
organizational negligence.
Good!
Back to our topic, Bishop.
That's the Bible.
Thank you.
Who wrote this book?
People who were inspired
by the Spirit of God.
According to your religion,
these people put
God's thoughts on paper.
Correct?
Yes.
- Are suicides described in it?
- Yes.
But I don't know
how many there were.
Let me think.
Saul, his armor-bearer.
Judas Iscariot.
There are 9 suicides in the
Old Testament, 1 in the New.
That could be right, yes.
Find the passage where
God forbids suicide
and read it to us.
Or Jesus. Where does he
explain that suicide is a sin?
I can't do that.
Why not?
The Bible does not forbid suicide.
It does not condemn,
denounce, or forbid it,
anywhere in this thick book.
Not explicitly.
If it is not explicitly forbidden,
then explain to us why suicide
should be considered a sin.
Because that is the basis
for rejecting assisted suicide.
- The Church Father Augustine...
- Augustine of Hippo?
Yes.
Augustine lived in 400 AD
and was a great Father of the Church.
What did Augustine mention regarding
suicide 1,600 years ago?
That is written in his treatise
"De civitate Dei".
"The City of God."
- That is what the 5th Commandment...
- You mean: "Thou shalt not murder"?
Yes, the commandment applies
not only to another person,
but also to oneself.
The commandment forbids
killing oneself.
Augustine believed
suicide to be a mortal sin,
perhaps even the worst,
since the victim can no longer repent.
The person committing suicide
could no longer repent.
The suicide victim is lost forever.
As a Christian, I share this view.
Not easy to understand.
For a long time, there was no prohibition
against suicide, not even a moral one.
On the contrary.
In the Roman Empire, suicide
was considered a natural right.
Augustine thus held a rather
extravagant opinion.
How did he come to do that?
He wanted to prevent many
Christians from dying as martyrs.
Was he right?
Wasn't it the case that
the Church itself sentenced
the death penalty for many crimes?
For murder, yes.
Good. Isn't that a contradiction?
Should someone,
who murders, be killed?
This means the prohibition against
killing is no longer absolute.
- This is an exception.
- An exception?
Yes? Wasn't the death penalty
also applied to kidnapping?
But...
And killing was permitted
in other situations as well.
One could beat a slave to death
without being punished.
Because, according to the Bible, one
can do anything with one's property.
Yes, but...
Sodomites could be executed,
sorceresses could be killed.
In war, one could kill, and in
self-defense, one could kill others.
How did you or the Pope arrive at
an absolute ban on killing?
- That's simply not the case.
- That's in the Old Testament.
In the New Testament,
killing is not permitted.
But, aren't the 10 Commandments
in the Old Testament?
Shouldn't we read
the 5th Commandment in this context?
We must see God's commandments from
the perspective of the New Testament.
This is already too complicated
for me. You mean,
we should understand the
opposite of what is written.
Jesus' Sermon on the Mount
does not call for killing.
Jesus calls for love,
even for our enemy.
- If someone slaps you on the right...
- That's not an answer.
Your colleagues certainly didn't
adhere to your interpretation.
In what way?
You know it.
The Church unscrupulously violated
the prohibition against killing.
Think of the Holy Wars,
the deaths caused by Inquisitionera
torture, support for the death penalty.
The death penalty? It was abolished
at the Second Vatican Council.
- The word of Jesus applies...
- Oh! yes?
As recently as 1993
your catechism stated,
I quote:
"The death penalty is accepted
as a response to the severity
of some crimes for
the protection of the common good."
It was only in 2018, under Pope Francis,
that this brutality was only abolished.
Perhaps we can agree that
the idea of the 5th commandment
was not exactly
Augustine's finest achievement.
So, what other arguments
are there in your faith
against assisted suicide?
- Thomas Aquinas!
- Thomas Aquinas?
He was born 800 years after
Augustine. But nothing in between.
There were no further arguments.
The Church adopted
Augustine's views.
In 452 AD at the Council of Arles,
suicide was declared a crime.
Eighty years later, it was decided,
that suicides could not
be given a Christian burial.
And another 150 years
later, it was decided,
that attempted suicide must
be followed by excommunication.
- Probably the worst punishment.
- Yes, that's right.
The prohibition caused much suffering.
This church agreed to condemn
the bodies of suicides.
They were hanged and dragged through
the streets and pelted with stones.
By chance, the sovereigns harsh
treatment of suicides ended up
punishing the family as well.
Yes.
After 800 years of suffering,
something new expressed Thomas Aquinas.
What was his opinion on suicide?
- He rejected it for three reasons.
- How could it be otherwise?
Firstly, suicide is unnatural.
Every being loves itself by nature.
Therefore, suicide is a sin
against the natural instinct.
Secondly, it is a sin against society.
Thirdly, and this is the
most important argument,
life .. is a gift from God.
Only He alone may make
the decision about life and death.
Oh, well.
Oh, well?
The first argument is nonsense.
[is unnatural]
There is no unconditional will
to live in humans.
Suicide is always a violation
against the community.
Don't people often kill themselves
precisely because
they can't cope with the community?
That may be true, but it's still wrong.
It is a person's duty to serve the community.
Perhaps a community
that also desires these services.
The third argument was
the most important. [ gift of God ]
- It applies without limit.
- Another absolute.
God gave life, and only
He may take it away again.
Just as the beginning of life
is beyond an individuals control,
so too is the ending.
Your life is God's a gift to you.
- Gifts may be returned.
- No, only God may do that.
It is a strange gift.
Here they proclaim that God alone
reigns over life and death.
Humans must not intervene.
They quote the Pope and the Bible,
stating that life is a gift to us.
And now we can extend our own lives.
In the 19th century,
life expectancy was 40 years.
It has since risen to 71,
in developed countries, to 81 years.
In the past,
one-third of children died
before their 5th birthday.
Today it's only 10 percent.
The reason is not
that God has become nicer,
but because of the progress
of medicine and enlightenment.
But given their line of argument and
their assaults on Gods sovereignty,
I find that absurd.
You wouldnt claim that
resuscitation or a pacemaker
infringes on Gods rights, would you?
You're twisting everything.
I have the feeling that
your real issue lies elsewhere.
Didn't Augustine also wrote,
that man, as a soldier of Christ,
should not desert?
That's right, yes.
That means he must endure
all misery and not give up?
Yes, that's right.
Man must be strong
and not die in sin.
Where does this idea
of sin come from?
Your rejection of assisted suicide
is incomprehensible
without this concept.
Sin is the transgression
of a divine commandment.
I thought Jesus Christ has
already died for our sins.
To redeem us from them.
And we must be redeemed,
because there is an original sin.
The original sin separated
humanity from God.
The separation is healed
again through Christ.
Adam and Eve committed it,
they ate of the forbidden fruit.
God's punishment, man must suffer
misery and become mortal.
But God condemned Adam, Eve,
and also their descendants.
That's what is meant
by original sin, yes.
Now, explain me this.
Does not God accept punishment
to presuppose personal guilt?
The original sin is a condition,
not a personal act,
we are born with it.
The story of Adam and Eve
is not a reality,
but a symbol for humanity itself.
A very cruel one.
If I understand correctly,
Jesus Christ allows himself to be
nailed to the cross for this sin.
We will never fully understand it.
Furthermore, God bears
the responsibility for this first sin.
He planted the tree of knowledge
and created the evil serpent.
Button line, he set
the conditions for the first sin.
Then he allowed himself to be
crucified in the form of Christ,
and thus forgave us the sin
that he himself caused.
That sounds insane, doesn't it?
If God wanted to forgive us our sins,
why didn't he just do it?
Why this whole
complicated, cruel, illogical
and above all, sad story?
And if I may say so,
what is the purpose of these sins?
Besides making people's
lives miserable?
God doesn't do that,
you should stop being so rude.
It's a vicious circle!
Let me rephrase the question.
I hope I don't sound rude again.
Isn't it right for human beings
to strive for happiness and
to avoid suffering?
Isn't that his essence, his nature?
Isn't human suffering
something .. utterly meaningless?
I ...
Mr. Bishop?
To live is to suffer.
Excuse me?
Life means suffering, Mr. Biegler!
Christianity,
if you consider it seriously,
is the religion of suffering.
I know it's difficult,
doesn't fit into modern times.
You are right about many things.
The Enlightenment was right
about many things.
The words of Augustine
and Thomas Aquinas
no longer convince people today.
People hardly understand
these words anymore.
But there is faith.
My faith.
Suffering
is terrible,
often almost unbearable, yes.
But the suffering of a Christian
believer is never a punishment.
His suffering has nothing
to do with revenge.
It is .. yes, it is purification!
Purification?
Yes.
Mr. Biegler, you
have campaigned against Section 217
and you have achieved your goal.
But do you really know
the spirits youre summoning?
Do you really know what it means?
Tell me.
For two years now,
almost every day
a young woman
came to my church.
She always sat in the same seat.
She didn't kneel, pray,
light a candle.
And ?
I spoke to her because
she piqued my curiosity.
What did she say?
She was 31 years old.
Six years ago,
at 25, she ran over a child.
A little boy.
He died instantly.
She couldn't help it,
he emerged from between the cars.
She wasn't charged, but
she couldn't take it anymore.
Her life collapsed.
She was in a clinic.
She,
she went into therapy
and took medication.
She separated from
her husband and her friends.
She took a job,
the most mindless job,
because she did not want to
or could not think anymore.
I see.
This young woman
wants to die.
She said her life is over.
And she told me something
that
I can't get out of my mind.
She said:
"Everyone has forgiven me,
but I can't forgive myself."
Mr. Gartner, how old are you?
Me?
- 78.
- 78, yes.
You surely still have a few good years
left that you want to throw away.
Please, forgive me.
That's sad enough, but
this young woman has
a whole life ahead.
She can remarry, have children.
She can be happy again.
Now I ask you, Mr. Biegler,
and everybody present,
ladies and gentlemen:
Are going to lend that which
will end this young woman's life?
Do you really want to
give a 31-year-old a drug
that will kill her?
That's not the question.
A suicide victim who
rebels against suffering
rebels against the meaning
of his own life.
Modern society believes that
happiness is the meaning of life;
and only those who decide about
their own death are truly free.
But that is fundamentally false.
I
believe in Jesus Christ.
In the man who took up the cross.
To bear this cross is
the true meaning of our lives.
True freedom is found only
by yielding oneself to the will of God.
We cannot fall from His hand.
You are right, Mr. Biegler.
The Christian faith is
not rational or enlightened,
it is not logical,
it recognizes no compromise.
It requires of us what today
can barely be voiced, grasped.
Namely,
to bear life
with all its sorrows,
even to the last breath,
and from that burden
distill its purpose.
Mr. Bishop, your
confession impressed me.
And I believe
I also understand you a little.
But,
forgive me,
your confession
presupposes a very specific belief
in a very specific God.
Yes.
It does.
I have no further questions.
Thank you very much.
We concluded the hearing
with the words of Bishop Thiel.
Thank you very much,
Professor Litten,
Professor Sperling,
Bishop Thiel
and Dr. Brandt for your time.
We now proceed to the
closing addresses by Dr. Keller.
and Mr. Biegler.
- Please, Dr. Keller.
- Thank you.
When the Supreme Court in the
USA ruled on euthanasia,
it was a difficult
and an interesting case.
Six philosophers explained to
the court in a letter,
that the liberal state must stay out
of moral and religious debates
because it is solely the right of the
citizen to decide how to live and die.
The philosophers asserted that
the decision about dying
must be free from:
"The imposition of any religious
or philosophical requirements
by the judiciary or legislature."
This is the argument
presented by Mr. Gartner.
It sounds more attractive
and modern than that of Bishop Thiel.
It is the spirit of the times and
many share the philosophers' opinion.
We have the greatest personal
freedom that has ever existed.
We live more independently
and self-determined,
than any generation before us.
People now want to end their
lives in a self-determined way,
with medical assistance.
Self-determination is
a deeply important value.
No one doubts that.
But the human heart also hungers
for love, for protection,
and for the warmth of community.
We depend on each other
from birth to death.
The decision to live is
a highly personal one
and the state must stay out of it.
But this interdependence commands us
not help the person
wishing to commite suicide,
but try and prevent him
from doing so.
This commandment is
much older than our laws.
It stands above our laws,
because it is what originally
gave rise to our community.
Only if we stand for
the life of the other,
until their natural death,
can we exist as a genuine
human community.
Any who helps is essentially saying,
it's right that you're no longer alive.
And that's a terrible statement
because it destroys
our moral foundation.
I hope that the right to help
does not become an obligation.
I know solidarity is not a concept
that fits into modern life.
But without it, without solidarity,
we lose what makes us who we are,
humans.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Dr. Keller.
Mr. Biegler, please.
In a few years, we will all be dead.
Most will die from a
cardiovascular disease,
many others, from cancer.
Our lives will probably end
in a hospital.
Only one in five of us
will die in a care facility.
And only a quarter, where
most people want to die,
at home.
Ladies and gentlemen,
if you lean back for a moment,
you will notice that there is
only one question here.
It's not about aiding and abetting,
about failure to render assistance,
about assisted suicide
or any other term
that lawyers have conceived.
It's only about a single,
very simple and clear question.
This question,
ladies and gentlemen, is:
To whom does our life belong.
Does it belong to a god,
to the state, society,
to family, friends,
or does it belong to ourselves.
In my 20 years as
a criminal defense lawyer
I have come
to one conclusion.
Human beings are ambivalent beings.
We are all good and evil
at the same time,
yet we still form
a somewhat plausible whole.
It's no different with our society.
It is not homogeneous,
it is divided.
It is contradictory,
multifaceted and completely divided.
Today we believe
in God, Allah, Buddha,
in the Flying Spaghetti Monster,
or just in ourselves.
But what unites us,
in all our supposed enlightenment,
is the enduring mystery that
right and wrong will forever elude
our final understanding.
No verdict on this world
is ever absolute.
Ladies and gentlemen, I admit,
I am no philosopher.
And yet I wonder whether
it is not exactly this
that touches the essence of
our European, our Western society?
Not a forced consensus, but the courage
to withstand peaceful disagreement?
I am grateful for the ruling of
the Federal Constitutional Court.
This ruling is enlightening.
Enlightenment in the best,
in the truest sense.
It is life-affirming,
because it knows about death.
It is humane, because
it understands the suffering.
After centuries in darkness,
we can finally be free.
We need not be afraid of the freedom
people claim for themselves.
On September 22, 2007
the writer Andr Gorz
and his wife took their own lives.
Two years earlier,
he wrote a letter to his wife.
Allow me to quote briefly from it.
"You just turned 82.
And you are still beautiful,
graceful, desirable.
We have lived together for 58 years
and I love you more than ever.
I recently fell in love
with you all over again.
Once again I carry
this emptiness in my chest,
the only warmth of your body
that can fill mine.
At nights, I sometimes see
the figure of a man
walking along an empty street
behind a hearse.
That man is me.
And it is you
whom the hearse takes away.
I don't want to be present
at your cremation.
I don't want a vessel with your ashes.
I listen to your breath,
my hand touches you.
None among us wishes to bear
the sorrow of outliving the other."
Ladies and gentlemen,
Whose claim but ours
may lay hold upon our death?
Thank you.
Do you think to be right
that Mr. Gartner
gets sodium pentobarbital
in order to kill himself?
We need to ask ourselves
this question.
The Federal Constitutional Court has
declared that there is no difference
whether a healthy or
a terminally ill person wants to die.
A doctor can assist in suicide,
but he is not obligated to do so.
The legislature may later
prevent abuse
and test free will.
But for us here and now,
we are only concerned
with the fundamental,
ethical question.
Do you think it is right
to give a healthy person
a lethal drug?
Would you do it,
if you were a doctor?
Would you administer sodium
pentobarbital to Mr. Gartner,
if you knew that
it would kill him?
Mr. Gartner is 78.
Would you give the medication
to a 30-year-old woman?
Each of you can answer
according to your ethical
and moral beliefs.
It's only about your personal
belief, not the law.
We are not in the courtroom.
Mr. Gartner, we have
dedicated all this time
discussing your personal wish to die.
Would you like to add
something else?
I would like to thank you
for listening my case.
I hope you will reflect on this case.
I am convinced that things improve
when they are discussed openly and freely.
That's all.
Thank you, Mr. Gartner.
The discussion about this difficult
topic has only just begun.
The outcome remains uncertain.
Mr. Biedler asked, to whom
our life and death belongs.
I cannot answer that on your behalf,
but I am certain that it is our state,
our society and our future,
that are at stake in this debate.
Elisabeth Garner besought
her husband to act aright,
yet who among us can say
what right may be?
Ladies and gentlemen,
thank you very much.
So ends, for this day, the gathering
of the Council of Ethics.
After the film aired on ARD in Germany,
viewers were invited to vote
on the central ethical question:
Should Mr. Gartner be allowed
to receive Pentobarbital to end his life?
70% voted YES
(public TV vote) - DerStandard
For the theatre version of GOTT,
about 61.9% YES across theatre audiences.
gott.theater
from German text and audio