摘要
德国传统刑法理论将安乐死区分为积极安乐死、间接安乐死与消极安乐死三种情形。其中,间接安乐死与消极安乐死并不构成刑事犯罪,但积极安乐死原则上依据德国刑法第216条受嘱托杀人罪或者第212条故意杀人罪受到处罚。然而,德国联邦最高法院第二刑事审判庭在其2010年的判决中对这种传统见解提出了挑战。该判决主张在医事领域放弃积极安乐死与消极安乐死的区分,转而认为但凡构成"中断治疗"的安乐死都属于合法行为。第二刑事审判庭的这种立场转变有其内在原因,也与德国近年来特殊的立法背景相关。其虽然具有积极意义,但同时也带来了许多未解的难题。我国对之借鉴应当慎重。
Euthanasia is divided into active euthanasia, indirect euthanasia and passive euthanasia in the traditional theory of German Criminal Law, among which indirect euthanasia and passive euthana- sia do not constitute a criminal offence while active euthanasia should be punished in principle according to the Article 216 of homicide on request or Article 212 of intentional homicide in German Criminal Law. However, the Second Criminal Panel of the Federal Court of Justice had raised a challenge to the traditional view in the legal judgment in 2010. The judgment advocated abandoning the differentiation of active euthanasia and passive euthanasia in medical field and turned to admitting that euthanasia is not against the law as long as it constitutes ＂treatment interruption. ＂ The standpoint shifting of the Second Criminal Panel not only has its inherent reasons but relates to the special legislative background of Ger- many in recent years as well. In spite of the positive significances, the shifting also presents us with many unsolved problems and should be carefully evaluated when used for reference.
出处
《比较法研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2015年第5期89-107,共19页
Journal of Comparative Law
关键词
安乐死
中断治疗
自主决定
受嘱托杀人
不作为
euthanasia
treatment interruption
autonomy
homicide on request
omission
