A woman in a coma, about their patients available for years before the court, it was argued, allowed to die after a decision of the Federal court of justice (BGH). The judges rejected a complaint of her husband against a decision of the district court of Landshut, as the court announced on Thursday. Thus, the son of the woman in the last instance: It is different than the husband in the Belief that his mother would have wanted an end to the artificial nutrition and hydration.
The case is of fundamental importance: It was in essence about how exactly people for the real case, must hold on, when you continue to want to live and when, so that your wishes are also taken into account. The Expression, “no life-support to measures” is not enough, for example, in the rule, because it is much too General. In the case of the 1940-born wife, who had suffered more than ten years ago to a stroke, had filed the Federal court of justice but in the beginning of 2017 doubts as to whether the courts of the patients had not too much to ask.
Patients available since 2009
Since 2009, the law opens up the possibility in advance, in writing, to determine whether and how you wish to be treated, in certain situations, medical. To facilitate interpretation, may be placed in the patient’s personal information, for example, to the own values or religious issues. The German Foundation patient protection believes that now every third person in Germany has a patient.
A first Supreme court decision in 2016 had upset the patient’s protectors, according to many people. In this case, a woman had decreed that in the case of a permanent damage to the brain “life-prolonging measures should remain under”. After a stroke, the daughters argued about whether the mother wanted to continue to be fed artificially. The Federal court of justice, the formulation as a basis was too thin. They did not contain a sufficiently specific treatment decision, as it was then.
Coma patient: A very clear intention is to
The patient was now, and had expressed very similar. She refused life-prolonging measures in addition, for the case, “that there is no prospect of regaining consciousness.” Before her stroke, she had witnessed two coma cases in the environment and has several times said relatives and Acquaintances, so she didn’t want to lie, you didn’t want to be fed artificially, they prefer to die. With your patients you’ve taken care of fortunately. Once she could speak after the stroke with your therapist at the time, she said: “I want to die.”
The district court was of the opinion that the could not clearly see that the woman want to cancel an already initiated artificial feeding. The BGH 2017 countered and made it clear: Even if medical measures are not described in detail, can be a patient’s specific enough, if certain diseases or treatment situations. If there is still a Chance that the woman comes to, let yourself by an expert to clarify.
This has to be rescheduled, the district court, in the meantime, and the document thereupon, however, for a sufficiently determined and effectively explains – according to experts, the functions of the cerebrum, the woman is completely wiped out. In order to implement what you wanted for this case, the family and the Doctors have to keep in mind. For the Foundation of patient protection, the decision once again makes clear: “The more specific a patient is, the better. If there is no interpretation possibilities, the bickering is unnecessary,” explained the Executive Board Eugen Brysch. “Therefore, should be described in the living will always clear which disease what are the medical measures desired or be rejected.”
