Acceso usuarios
Pablo Riquelme Vázquez
Este documento analiza la controversia jurídica suscitada en la República Federal de Alemania en torno a la prohibición del favorecimiento comercial del suicidio. En su primer apartado, se explica brevemente el marco jurídico para las decisiones al final de la vida. Para ello, se hace hincapié en el acto delictivo contencioso vigente en el país desde 2015 y refleja el estado de la técnica de acuerdo con la principal literatura científica en este sentido. La segunda parte analiza la reciente sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional Federal alemán que declara inconstitucional la mencionada prohibición de fomentar comercialmente el suicidio. En particular, en esta parte se examina la construcción de un derecho a una muerte autodeterminada llevada a cabo por el último intérprete de la Ley Fundamental Alemana. En tercer y último lugar, el documento extrae dos conclusiones del análisis anterior. La primera es de carácter funcional y, dado que el Tribunal Constitucional Federal alemán no excluyó tal posibilidad, se refiere a la viabilidad de conceptos alternativos de regulación. El segundo corolario tiene un carácter dogmático y consiste en evaluar la significativa omisión del derecho a la vida en la argumentación del alto tribunal alemán.
This paper analyses the legal controversy aroused in the Federal Republic of Germany around the prohibition of commercial encouragement of suicide. In its first section, the legal framework for end-of-life decisions is briefly explained. To this end, the work emphasises the contentious criminal act in force in the country since 2015 and reflects the state of the art according to the main scientific literature in this regard. The second part analyses the recent ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Courtthat declares unconstitutional the above-mentioned prohibition of commercial encouragement of suicide. In particular, this section looks into the construction of a right to a self-determined death carried out by the final arbiter of the German Fundamental Law. Thirdly and lastly, the paperdraws two conclusions from the prior analysis. The first one is of functionalnature and, since the German Federal Constitutional Court did not exclude such a possibility, refers to the feasibility of alternative concepts of legislation. The second corollary has a dogmatic nature and consists of assessing the significant omission of the right to life in the argumentation of the German highest court.Summary:1. The prohibition of commercial encouragement of suicide in the Federal Republic of Germany. 1.1. A brief reference to German criminal regulation in relation to euthanasia and assisted suicide. 1.2. The scientificcontroversy over § 217 StGB. 2. The right to a self-determined death in the Federal Republic of Germany. 2.1. The scope of protection of the right to free development of personality. 2.2. The limits of the right to free development of personality. 2.2.1. The justification for interferences (I): legitimate purpose, adequacy and necessity. 2.2.2. The justification for interferences (II): adequacy or proportionality in the strict sense. 3. Two corollaries by way of conclusion. 3.1 Functional correction and discretion of the legislator. 3.2. The Bundesverfassungsgericht and the right to life.
