Suizid im japanischen Medizinstrafrecht
Abstract
This article discusses current issues of committing suicide or euthanasia especially by ways of near-death assistance, and actual developments in terminal care in Japan from the point of view of criminal and medical law. First, the paper shows ways, how to recognize and seriously think about these issues by demonstrating societal discussions in reference to two movies: Clint Eastwood’s U.S. movie “A Million Dollar Baby” (2004) is introduced in order to explain that the decision of committing voluntary suicide rather is an individual decision asserting individual interests and individual dignity, than being a decision on behalf of family or societal interests, like the boxing studio the main character belonged to. On the other hand, the Japanese movie “TSUI no SHINTAKU” (A Terminal Trust) by Masayuki Suoh (2012) reflects the set of social and judicial perspectives on euthanasia, who still play a major role in society and legal discussion in Japan. Against this background the paper compares the Western and Eastern concepts of suicide and near-death assistance and classifies different forms of euthanasia within the judicial framework.
Accordingly the paper discusses two leading legal Japanese cases: that of Nagoya Appeal Court of Dec. 22, 1962, and that of Yokohama District Court of March 26, 1995. It is been shown that near-death assistance and especially terminal care in medical practices in Japan de facto exists and that practises are applied, but that neither passive nor active euthanasia is yet officially or legally accepted or allowed. As a result, decisions on near-death assistance are been made in secret.
The paper concludes that we have to recognize difficulties of near-death situations and respect individual decisions. Hereto we have to discuss concrete judicial conditions surrounding acts of suicide and euthanasia in public, not in secret. We need legal but not practical decisions to assure human dignity. However, it seems easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a medical doctor to undertake a mercy killing for his terminal patient without punishment.
Keywords
Suizid im japanischen Medizinstrafrecht
Abstract
This article discusses current issues of committing suicide or euthanasia especially by ways of near-death assistance, and actual developments in terminal care in Japan from the point of view of criminal and medical law. First, the paper shows ways, how to recognize and seriously think about these issues by demonstrating societal discussions in reference to two movies: Clint Eastwood’s U.S. movie “A Million Dollar Baby” (2004) is introduced in order to explain that the decision of committing voluntary suicide rather is an individual decision asserting individual interests and individual dignity, than being a decision on behalf of family or societal interests, like the boxing studio the main character belonged to. On the other hand, the Japanese movie “TSUI no SHINTAKU” (A Terminal Trust) by Masayuki Suoh (2012) reflects the set of social and judicial perspectives on euthanasia, who still play a major role in society and legal discussion in Japan. Against this background the paper compares the Western and Eastern concepts of suicide and near-death assistance and classifies different forms of euthanasia within the judicial framework.
Accordingly the paper discusses two leading legal Japanese cases: that of Nagoya Appeal Court of Dec. 22, 1962, and that of Yokohama District Court of March 26, 1995. It is been shown that near-death assistance and especially terminal care in medical practices in Japan de facto exists and that practises are applied, but that neither passive nor active euthanasia is yet officially or legally accepted or allowed. As a result, decisions on near-death assistance are been made in secret.
The paper concludes that we have to recognize difficulties of near-death situations and respect individual decisions. Hereto we have to discuss concrete judicial conditions surrounding acts of suicide and euthanasia in public, not in secret. We need legal but not practical decisions to assure human dignity. However, it seems easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a medical doctor to undertake a mercy killing for his terminal patient without punishment.
Keywords
