Comparative Legal Analysis of German and Austrian Constitutional Court Decisions on the Criminal Liability of Assisting Suicide

This study examines the decisions of the German and Austrian constitutional courts on the subject of assisted suicide in a comparative legal framework. Both judgments are based on human dignity and the right to self-determination, but differ in their definition of the limits of the state's obligation to protect life. The German Federal Constitutional Court interprets the right to self-determination in the broadest sense: It states that the motives for a decision to end one's life cannot be subject to external evaluation, as they fall exclusively within the sphere of the individual's inner convictions. The Austrian Constitutional Court, on the other hand, merely declared that a total ban was unconstitutional and left it to the legislature to lay down detailed rules. As a social and political consensus in favour of stricter regulation has emerged in Austria, the legislature limits the circle of eligible persons in the Sterbeverfügungsgesetz (Living Will Act) to those who are terminally ill or suffering from a life-threatening illness and layed down detailed procedural safeguards. The fundamental difference between the two models can thus be summarised as follows: Germany recognises personal autonomy under all circumstances without any restrictions, while Austria restricts access to assisted suicide more strictly and limits it to the seriously ill in order to prevent abuse.