Euthanasia is a 'Human Right'

Austria's Constitutional Court has Devilishly Ruled so, Thereby Enabling the Ending of Religious Freedom and Private Property

Signs and marvels of our time, it would seem, include the ‘opportunity’ of euthanasia, or ‘medical assistance in dying’ (MAID), as it is known overseas in Canada.

As reported by legacy media public and private, ‘the state’ is at-it once again, this time in Austria. At the heart of the matter is a quite obscure recent piece of legislation, the so-called (and very German wording) Sterbeverfügungsgesetz, which translates into something like ‘Consent-to-Die Act’ of 2022.

With Austria being—once—a more civilised place, ending someone else’s life was, of course, illegal until two years ago; not just in Austria, mind you, but virtually across Europe, with perhaps ‘early’ exceptions, such as the Netherlands or Switzerland somehow proving that general rule. No longer, it would appear, that is, if the EU Court of Justice (sic) permits this national legislation to stand, which also indicates something else: the EU Commission (Central Committee) will, in all likelihood, then ensure the same ‘rules’ applied throughout the EU bloc. But I digress.

From Shame and Murder to ‘Death by Consent’

2020 was a year of momentous change in this regard. Following a landmark ruling by the Constitutional Court in 2020, previously valid legal inhibitions—as well as the moral-historical underpinnings, I would add—were thrown out. As the Austrian Ministry of Justice (sic) explains, ‘in its ruling of 11 December 2020, the Constitutional Court declared the previous criminalisation of assisted suicide to be unconstitutional’.

First page of the ruling, with the ALL-CAPS header reading: ‘In the Name of the Republic!’ (source)

While the ministerial website is mum about the arguments in favour of (technically) ‘de-criminalisation’, they are available online—and here is the reasoning espoused by Austria’s Constitutional Court (source, dated 11 Dec. 2020; here and in the following, translations and emphases mine):

Criminal offence of ‘assisted suicide’ violates the right to self-determination

At the request of several affected persons, including two seriously ill people, the Constitutional Court has repealed the provision that criminalises assisted suicide:

The phrase ‘or assists him to do so’ in § 78 of the Criminal Code is unconstitutional. It violates the right to self-determination because this offence prohibits any kind of assistance under any circumstances.

There is, of course, a long laundry list cited by the Constitutional Court, the most important of which is the (in my opinion) conflation of the right to self-determination (orig. Selbstbestimmungsrecht) with the right to end one’s life. So far, so good—and why would that matter? I mean, suicide was long shunned and morally condemned in Christendom across all linguistic and denominational boundaries, but here’s the twist, for the Court added:

This right to free self-determination includes the right to organise one's life as well as the right to a dignified death. The right to free self-determination also includes the right of the person who wishes to commit suicide to seek the help of a third party who is prepared to do so…

If the decision to commit suicide is based on the free self-determination of the person concerned, this must be respected by the legislator.

The Constitutional Court does not overlook the fact that free self-determination is also influenced by a variety of social and economic circumstances. Accordingly, the legislator must provide measures to prevent abuse so that the person concerned does not make their decision to commit suicide under the influence of third parties [keep this provision in mind, it’s important later on].

Inducing someone else to commit suicide remains a punishable offence (pursuant § 78 (1) of the Criminal Code). The decision to kill oneself with the assistance of a third party is only protected by fundamental rights if…it is made freely and without influence.

Challenging § 77 of the Criminal Code (killing on demand [orig. Tötung auf Verlangen]) is not permissible. In the event of repeal, the killing of a person at their request would be punishable as murder or manslaughter. The repeal would therefore not eliminate the petitioners' objections to § 77 of the Criminal Code; in this respect, the scope of the challenge was too narrow [this tells you why the case ended up at the Constitution Court in the first place].

For those interested, you may find the full ruling (in German) here.

Citing the press release at-length is necessary to understand the Court’s reasoning and provides crucial background to the ‘story’ in legacy media (which the ‘journos’, of course, don’t provide you with).

The Constitutional Court as Trojan Horse

We thus summarise that there was a challenge to existing legislation—the ban on medically assisted suicide—by ‘several…seriously ill individuals’. The Constitutional Court deemed the suit valid and, in late 2020, ruled that the ‘right to self-determination’ also included the ‘right’ to end one’s life, but with a highly problematic twist: while committing suicide has always been an option on the table, for some individuals—esp. those in care homes or otherwise physically incapable—doing so, by necessity, would have to involve a third party. And now the Constitutional Court has, effectively, absolved said third party of any (legal) guilt.

The main problem, of course, is in ensuring that ‘the decision to kill oneself with the assistance of a third party is only protected by fundamental rights if…it is made freely and without influence’, as the Court held.

How would one determine this? I mean, every now and then, there have been news stories about cases involving care home personnel ‘helping’ old and/or sick people to die. Sometimes, doing so, because it was illegal, has been done in exchange for money or other valuables in the possession of the deceased. While we cannot, in principle, rule out sadistic or other (evil) predispositions, what will keep someone who ‘likes’ killing people from ‘helping’ out in such cases?

Fear not, the Court has thought about this, too: ‘the legislator must provide measures to prevent abuse’, the ruling held—which is about as explicitly a Trojan Horse as it gets. As it stands, the Constitutional Court has thereby obliged the government to ‘do something’ and get involved in medically assisted suicide, or euthanasia, as I’m wont to calling this. (As an aside, I know that the ruling reads ‘legislator’, by which is meant parliament, but the way legislation is made also means that it’s typically the gov’t that proposes new legislation, esp. if obliged by the Constitutional Court; oh, lest I forget, it’s also the gov’t—executive—who gets to ensure compliance later on: what could go wrong?)

Court Ruling Used to Force Christian Care Homes to Offer Assisted Suicide

As reported in legacy media, private and public, this ruling, which is barely a little over three years old, is now causing precisely this kind of problems anyone with more than one functioning brain cell could foresee.

Take, e.g., this article by Austrian weekly profil by Jakob Winter, who ‘reports’ the following on 3 Feb. 2024:

Several care home operators prohibit residents from making use of assisted suicide by house rules. Now the Austrian Ombudsman Board is intervening: euthanasia is a human right. This also applies to denominational operators…

After a waiting period of twelve weeks and two medical checks, people with incurable illnesses can make use of assisted suicide.

However, although the ban on assisted suicide was overturned by the Constitutional Court on 31 Dec. 2021, there are places where the repealed § 78 of the Criminal Code was allowed to live on...

During their unannounced visits to care homes, the Ombudsman Board's inspectors made a discovery that severely restricts the residents' right to self-determination: a passage was apparently included in the care home regulations of several operators that prohibits residents from utilising assisted suicide in the home.

Mr. Winter’s report is based on a yet-unreleased report by the Ombudsman Board (Volksanwaltschaft), but one thing to note is the strange bipolarity here: citing the proprietor’s right to issue house rules is invoked when employers—even now (!!!)—demand Covid-19 ‘vaccination’ in, e.g., hospital settings or the like. Then it’s all-o.k. to rely on house rules to do force people to forego their ‘human rights’.

In the case of euthanasia, though, the same house rules cannot be used by—and this is crucial here, for by the term ‘denominational’ is meant: Christian—care homes. For a variety of reasons, some historical and others grounded in faith and tradition, many such institutions in Austria are run by (mainly Catholic) orders.

The State Ends Religious Freedom

At this junction, we may thus infer that the Constitutional Court’s ruling is a massive infringement, if not outright curtailment, on both civil liberties (freedom of religion and freedom from coercion) and private property (as a proprietor may no longer provide ‘services’ according to his or her conscience).

There’s no other halfway charitable way to interpret this ruling in light of what happened in recent years and what, arguably, continues to be happen (‘vaccine’ mandates). As both aspects are grounded in the same legal concepts, they cannot both be ‘true’ or ‘valid’ at the same time.

This comes out clearly in the second-hand ‘reporting’ by state broadcaster ORF:

Care Homes Deny Inhabitants Assisted Suicide

Ombudsman Bernhard Achitz called on care home operators to ‘accept’ the option of assisted suicide without criminal penalties provided for in the ‘Consent-to-Die Act’.

Care Home Providers Threatened Inhabitants with Cancellation

According to profil, during their unannounced visits to care homes, inspectors found a passage in the house rules of several operators that prohibits residents from making use of assisted suicide in the home, as can be seen from a written statement by the Human Rights Advisory Board of the Austrian Ombudsman Board.

Care home providers threatened their clients with cancellation of their care home contract if they were caught making preparations for assisted suicide. Some care home operators are also likely to have prohibited their staff from counselling residents about legal options on request.

The document does not specify which homes are involved, but according to profil there are indications that they could be denominational institutions.

See what I mean? If you operate, e.g., a Christian charity that offers seniors a care home place, you cannot by law claim religious exemptions from the Commandment that ‘Thou shalt not kill’.

In a written statement to profil, Ombudsman Achitz called on care home operators to ‘accept the possibility of assisted suicide without punishment provided for in the Consent-to-Die Act’ out of respect for the free decision of the residents’.

And thus goes another piece of the bill of rights, namely the one holding that one’s such individual rights end precisely where the next one’s rights begin.

For the Constitutional Court and the Ombudsman, though, religious considerations—faith—are something that are no longer protected by the constitution.

Let’s not mince words here, for this is evil: based on the above-discussed court ruling, the state asserts the right to in effect force ‘denominational’ (Christian) care home providers to permit assisted suicide, even though doing so clearly violates both religious liberties and the fundamental precept of private property (which permit creation of house rules in the first place).

Bottom Lines

To sum up: the Constitutional Court has, strangely, decided that the ‘right to self-determination’ can, at times, legally involve a third party. This is a contradiction, if there ever was one, and my biggest fear is that this will snowball in the next years.

The implications are gigantic, for if this ruling is permitted to stand, it signifies the gradual abolishment of private property, which is the core of the Communist creed.

The contradictory nature of the Constitutional Court’s ruling is also apparent in yet another, if related, context: private property permits the writing of house rules, which is often cited as legal grounds for the demand by employers to prospective employees to ‘get vaccinated’.

As such, the Court’s ruling fundamentally alters the relationship between ‘the people’, notionally sovereign as per Art. I of the Austrian Constitution, and the process prescribed here: the legislator is obliged to ‘fix things’ here, the above-related logical implications notwithstanding.

The big problem with such a ruling is, of course, that the state now will get involved in sanctioning when it is ‘legal’ to euthanise people. C’mon on, people, we’ve been ‘there’ before, it happened before 1945, and was subsequently outlawed for a very good reason: no-where is it written that those who determine whose ‘life [is] unworthy of living’ (orig. lebensunwertes Leben) today will not ‘amend’ the categories later on.

Moreover, it stands to expect that ‘the state’ will continue, if not reinforce, its assaults on the world’s single-most persecuted religious group, Christians, while continue to meddle with what remains of the bill of rights.

This is, of course, both unsavoury and evil, for what the Constitutional Court is doing is enabling, in eschatological terms, the forces of death to gain the upper hand over the living.

This is wrong on so many levels, it boggles the mind.

You also don’t have to be religious to clearly see where this will lead to: Evil.