“Our euthanasia law article urgently needs supplementation”

In 2017, doctor Pierre Beck helped an 89-year-old commit suicide by prescribing the anesthetic sodium pentobarbital. The woman was healthy and healthy. After much back and forth, the Federal Court has now acquitted Beck of the charge of violating the Narcotics Act. What does this judgment mean from your point of view?
Christoph Rehmann-Sutter: The case shows that many questions about assisted suicide in Switzerland are still unresolved. In certain cases, for example, it should be dealt with criminally. Significantly, this trial was only about whether Beck had broken the drug law and not about whether he was guilty of murder.

Yes, why wasn’t that the central question?
Because our criminal law states: Assisted suicide is permitted, as long as you do not pursue selfish motives with this assistance, such as the pursuit of profit. With Pierre Beck it was clear that he acted altruistically. The 89-year-old had credibly explained to him that she would commit suicide if her seriously ill husband left his life. To spare her a possible painful death or a failed suicide attempt, the doctor prescribed the anesthetic.

So he acted in accordance with the law.
Precisely.

Why did the court spend so much time on the issue of violations of the Narcotics Act?
I suspect the lawsuit was born of uncertainty. According to reports, the woman was completely healthy and healthy. For many people, this makes assisted suicide ethically questionable. In the case of someone who is seriously ill and for whom continued life would mean great suffering, assisted suicide is morally easier to justify. However, our criminal law allows assisted suicide in both cases. This may have raised some ethical questions for the judges. I am curious to read the reasons for the judgment in detail.

But haven’t these questions already been clarified? For example, the Swiss Academy of Sciences has drawn up guidelines on euthanasia. For example: The judgment of the person who wants to die must be clarified before he or she is assisted in dying.
But these are just guidelines, not law. If a doctor does not comply with these rules, he cannot be prosecuted. Moreover, in 2013 the European Court of Human Rights criticized Switzerland for precisely this reason: Swiss law does not formulate sufficiently clear criteria under which circumstances assisted suicide is legal and under which it is not. I feel the same way. That is why I hope that the current case will restart the political and social discussion about euthanasia. Our euthanasia law article urgently needs supplementation.

Why hasn’t this happened until now?
That is a good question. From 2001 to 2009, I chaired the National Ethics Committee in the field of human medicine, which was recently established by the Federal Council. In this position I worked with numerous specialists on the development of additions to Article 115 of the Criminal Code. However, the then federal councilor, Christoph Blocher, rejected our suggestions.

On what grounds?
You often hear the same thing from these circles: the state should keep out of this very private matter as much as possible. A few years later, the new federal councilor Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf made another attempt to amend our law on euthanasia and assisted suicide. However, their proposal was so narrow that it quickly failed in parliament. Further attempts to more closely regulate euthanasia in the cantons through initiatives failed due to the will of the people.

Why is that? Is euthanasia such a high priority among Swiss?
The fact that a person has the right to die independently and with dignity is certainly deeply rooted in the Swiss soul. Our country decriminalized suicide because society came to realize that people who want to commit suicide need help, not punishment. You have to take care of them. Based on this knowledge, it was a logical step to also decriminalize assisted suicide. Only with the addition: You may not pursue your own interests. One reason why euthanasia options are important to us is that dying affects us all. We hope for a death that is not painful and allows for a good farewell.

And when and how does it feel good for most people?
Every person has to say that for themselves. I can only assume of myself: I want to be able to leave one day without having to feel much suffering – and that includes, for example, no longer seeing any meaning in life. I would prefer to die so painlessly, with dignity and at a time when I have ended my life and no longer have major conflicts with people close to me.

Can you imagine using a service like Exit for just this one day?
Yes. I’m glad we have offers like Exit. But having the right to assisted suicide is just one thing. There must also be people who can provide this help and know what is important to make this successful and attuned to the environment.