德國聯邦憲法法院（BVerfG）於2020年2月26日宣告德國刑法第217條業務協助自殺罪違憲，要求德國聯邦議院重新構思合憲的保護構想來規範協助自殺。本文探討該判決如何理解自決死亡權與協助自殺權，以及該判決對於業務協助自殺罪違憲所提出的論證，據以提出未來修法保護構想的可能建議。本文對於德國法制的探討亦可供我國未來修正病人自主權利法與刑法受囑託殺人罪時之參考。<br>文分五部分，引言介紹德國聯邦憲法法院2020年2月26日判決之背景（壹），接下來針對本文的問題意識進行相關脈絡之說明（貳），其次探討並評論系爭判決所主張的自決死亡權與協助自殺權，以及該判決所提出的業務協助自殺罪違憲的核心論證（參），再次則從德國法的角度提出幾個針對未來修法的保護構想建議及其對我國未來立修法的啟發（肆），最後則做一簡短結論以總結本文最主要的觀點（伍）。

After the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) declared Section 217 of the German Penal Code (which criminalized facilitating suicide as recurring pursuit) unconstitutional on February 26, 2020, it tasked the German Bundestag with redesigning a constitutional concept of protection to regulate assisted suicide. This article examines how the judgment construes the right to a self-determined death and the right to assisted suicide, delineating the core argument that led to the invalidation of the offense. In light of the critical examination, this article suggests a potential concept of protection for future legislative amendments. Furthermore, this analysis of the German legal system serves as a valuable reference for Taiwan’s future reforms of the Patient Right to Autonomy Act and the offense of homicide upon request under the Criminal Code.<br>This article is divided into five parts. It begins with an introduction to the background of the 2020 judgment (Part I) and outlines the central issues and the underlying context (Part II). It then explores and evaluates the right to a self-determined death and the right to assisted suicide as articulated by the Court, analyzing the core arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of the offense (Part III). Following this, from the perspective of German Law, the article offers several recommendations for the future concept of protection and discusses their implications for Taiwan’s legislation evolution (Part IV). Finally, a brief conclusion summarizes the primary findings of this study (Part V).