德國醫師職業規範範本「禁止醫師協助自殺」條文之刪除對刑法第217條違憲判決之後續影響

Effects of the Deletion of § 16 S. 3 MBO upon the BVerfG Judgment on § 217 StGB Concerning its Unconstitutionality

德國醫師公會聯合會在2021年5月舉行第124屆德國醫師代表大會，大會決議刪除醫師職業規範範本第16條第3句禁止醫師協助自殺的條文（§16 S. 3 MBO），理由是醫師代表大會認為該條文違憲。本文將指出，醫師代表大會提出的理由不足以證明該條文違憲，但該條文的確在形式上有違憲之虞，這是因為禁止醫師協助自殺的規定涉及基本權的限制，根據基本法明定的法律保留原則，這類規定應由國會透過法律來訂定，而不應由各邦醫師職業公會來規定。無論如何，醫師代表大會刪除該條文回歸了形式上的合憲性，而刪除的決議也引發全國各邦醫師公會刪除邦醫師職業規範醫師協助自殺禁令的趨勢。 醫師協助自殺禁令的刪除對於德國聯邦憲法法院（BVerfG）2020年2月26日有關刑法第217條業務協助自殺罪違憲的判決會產生什麼衝擊呢？該判決的核心論證主張刑法第217條違憲的理由在於它對自殺權的間接與事實侵害不符合比例原則，而這正是因為當時德國多數邦禁止醫師協助自殺的緣故。因此，當各邦醫師協助自殺禁令都被刪除時，該判決核心論證的基礎就不復存在了，亦即刑法第217條對自殺權的限制有合憲解釋（verfassungskonforme Auslegung）的可能。此一發展將賦予國會更大的立法形成自由空間，去思考新的保護概念。

The 124th German Congress of Physicians held in May 2021 by the Confederation of German Medical Associations decided to delete the third sentence of Article 16 of the Physician Professional Code Model, which prohibits physician-assisted suicide (§ 16 S. 3 MBO). The reason for the deletion is due to the unconstitutionality according to the Congress of Physicians. This article will show that the reasons presented by the Congress of Physicians are insufficient to justify its claim that the provision is unconstitutional, but, on the other hand, whether or not the provision is substantially unconstitutional, it is likely to be formally unconstitutional. This is because the prohibition of physician-assisted suicide involves restrictions on fundamental rights. According to the principle of legal reservations expressly stipulated in the German Basic Law, such provisions should be regulated by the Parliament through laws, not by the medical professional associations of various states through professional codes, which are of the nature of internal regulations for the members of the associations. In any case, the removal of this provision by the Physician Congress is formally constitutional and justified. No wonder it triggers the trend of state medical associations across the country to remove the prohibition on physician-assisted suicide in every individual state physician professional code. What impact would the removal of physician-assisted suicide prohibitions have on the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany’s (BVerfG) ruling on February 26, 2020, which declared Section 217 (prohibition of suicide facilitation as recurring pursuit) of the German Criminal Code (§ 217 StGB) unconstitutional? The core argument of the ruling held that Section 217 was unconstitutional because the indirect and factual infringement it imposed on the right to suicide was disproportionate. This disproportionality was largely due to the fact that, at the time, most German states prohibited physician-assisted suicide. Based on this reasoning, the removal of state-level bans on physicianassisted suicide would undermine the core argument for the unconstitutionality of Section 217. In other words, Section 217 might no longer hollow out the right to suicide and could be interpreted in a constitutionally compliant way (verfassungskonforme Auslegung). This development would grant the legislature greater freedom in shaping new concepts of protection.