Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patient’s Autonomy According to German Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advance Care Decision Making in Germany and Italy

Abstract

During the last two decades, various options have been developed to enable competent persons to influence, in advance, the decision-making process concerning their medical treatment in case they become incompetent. At the same time, this raised the question about the legal status of such statements, asking if they are fundamentally different from actual consents or refusals to consent regarding medical treatment. The Act that has come into force on September 1st, 2009, regulates living wills and the duties and role of surrogate decision-makers in the scope of civil law, but leaves quite a lot of questions unanswered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    “Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany” (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland—GG) of 23 May 1949 (Federal Law Gazette p. 1), in the revised version published in the Federal Law Gazette, part III, class. no. 100-1, as last amended by Art. 1 of the Law of 11 July 2012 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 1478)”, English unofficial translation available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/index.html (Last accessed: 1 October 2013).

  2. 2.

    “Criminal Code” (Strafgesetzbuch—StGB) of 15 May 1871, in the version promulgated on 13 November 1998 (Federal Law Gazette, part I, p. 3322), last amended by Art. 1 of the Law of 24 September 2013 (Federal Law Gazette, part I, p. 3671). Unofficial English translation available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html (Last accessed: 1 October 2013).

  3. 3.

    “Civil Code” (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch—BGB) of 18 August 1896, in the version promulgated on 2 January 2002, last amended by Art. 1 of the Law of 20 September 2013 (Federal Law Gazette I p. 3642); unofficial English translation available at http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/index.html (Last accessed: 1 October 2013).

  4. 4.

    Repeated judicial decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice (BGHSt 11, 111; 16, 309; 35, 246; BGHZ 29, 33; 106, 153) based on judicial decisions of the Imperial Court of Justice dating back to 1894 (RGSt 25, 375; 38, 34).

  5. 5.

    In order to improve readability, only the male form is used in the text; nevertheless, all data apply to members of both genders.

  6. 6.

    Section 630 d BGB. For further information on informed consent, see Parzeller et al. (2012), pp. A576–586.

  7. 7.

    Taupitz (2000a), pp. A28 et seq.

  8. 8.

    Taupitz (2000a), p. A28.

  9. 9.

    For an overview of exceptions to the physician's duty of informing the patient, see Parzeller et al. (2012), p. A581.

  10. 10.

    Compare: BVerfG decision from 25 July 1979 no. 2 BvR 878/74 = BVerfGE 52, 131; BGH decision from 5 July 2007 no. 4 StR 549/06 = MedR 2008, 158.

  11. 11.

    BGH decision from 5 December 1958 no. VI ZR 266/57 = BGHZ 29, 33.

  12. 12.

    Taupitz (2000a), pp. A60 et seq.

  13. 13.

    BGH, decision from 10 February 1959 no. 5 StR 533/58 = BGHSt 12, 379.

  14. 14.

    More information: Taupitz (2000a), pp. A58 et seq.

  15. 15.

    See LG Oldenburg decision from 16 March 2010 no. AZ 8 T 180/10; crit. remark on the decision from Tolmein (2010).

  16. 16.

    In the end critical on the use of presumed consent (especially regarding existential questions): Laufs (1998), p. 3400; Seitz (1998), p. 421; Höfling (2000), p. 116 et seq.; van Oosten (1999), pp. 673, 680 (considering South Africa), with further references.

  17. 17.

    Höfling (2009), p. 2851; same position: Diederichsen in: Palandt (2012), sec. 1897 BGB, recital 16, sec. 1901a, recital 6.

  18. 18.

    The parliamentary debate started back in 1985, after a publicity campaign of assisted suicide proponents. Accordingly, the public hearing held by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the German Bundestag focused mainly on criminal law provisions. For more information on this initial debate, see Stenographisches Protokoll über die 51. Sitzung des Rechtsausschusses des Deutschen Bundestages (1985), protocol no. 51.

  19. 19.

    “3rd Act Changing the Custodianship Law” (3. Gesetz zur Änderung des Betreuungsrechts—3. BtÄndG”) of 29 July 2009 (entered into force on 1 September 2009), in: Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2286.

  20. 20.

    This law was supported by different members of all parties, even though mainly by members of the Social Democrats, the Greens, and the Liberals. In this case, the usual practice to vote in line with their own party was skipped, since this issue was considered to be a matter of conscience.

  21. 21.

    Nevertheless, an indirect impact on criminal law occurred due to the recognition of the primacy of the patient’s will over the physician’s position as the guarantor of life (sec. 323c of the Criminal Code). See also BGH decision from 25 June 2010 no. 2 StR 454/09 = NJW 2010, 2963 (2966).

  22. 22.

    Brauer et al. (2009), p. 227; Clements (2009), p. 276; Emanuel (2008), p. 198; Loewy (2004), p. 416; Gillick (2004), p. 8.

  23. 23.

    There are different such orders or requests, such as DNR (“do not resuscitate”), CPR (“cardiopulmonary resuscitation”), DNAR, (“do not attempt resuscitation”), AND (“allow natural death”), “comfort measures only”, “no tube feeding”, “no IV-fluids”, etc. For further information: Gillick (2006), p. 133; Burns et al. (2003), p. 1550; Mirachi (2007), p. 305; Schmidt (2009), p. A-1511/B-1292/C-1260; Rinofner-Kreidl (2010), p. 32; Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften (SAMW) 2008, etc.

  24. 24.

    Jox et al. (2008), p. 163.

  25. 25.

    A bill presented to the German parliament regarding this issue and suggesting that relatives should be considered as standard surrogate decision-makers for incompetent patients was rejected at this point (Bundestag printed paper no. 15/4874 p. 26, in conj. with Bundestag printed paper no. 15/2494). For further information: Bundesrat printed paper no. 865/03; 2003, p. 97, http://www.dnoti.de/DOC/2005/abschlussbericht.pdf (Last accessed: 20 June 2012); crit. Strätling et al. (2003), p. 379; in favour of a default system, Sahm and Will, (2005), p. 20.

  26. 26.

    Bundesamt für Justiz: Betreuungsverfahren—Zusammenstellung der Bundesergebnisse für die Jahre 1992 bis 2011, available online at: http://www.bundesjustizamt.de/DE/Themen/Buergerdienste/Justizstatistik/Betreuung/Verfahren__Betreuungsgesetz,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Verfahren_Betreuungsgesetz.pdf (Last accessed: 17 July 2012).

  27. 27.

    Usually they cover property and financial or personal welfare matters, but they can also be more detailed like, e.g., “apartment clearing out” (BayObLG decision from 19 June 2001 no. 3Z BR 125/01 = NJW 2002, 381), etc.

  28. 28.

    Compare sec. 276 I no. 2 of the Law on the Proceedings regarding Family Matters and Voluntary Jurisdiction (Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit = FamFG).

  29. 29.

    Bundestag printed paper no. 11/4528, p. 122; BayObLG decision from 3 June 2002 no. 3Z BR 94/02 = FamRZ 2002, 1225 et seq.; BGH decision from 4 August 2010 no. XII ZB 167/10.

  30. 30.

    Compare: BayObLG decision from 3 August 1995 no. 3 Z BR 190/95 = BtPrax 1995, 218; BayObLG decision from 24 August 2001 no. 3 Z BR 274/01 = FPR 2002, 203.

  31. 31.

    Diederichsen in: Palandt (2012), sec. 1897 BGB, recital 16.

  32. 32.

    Bundestag printed paper no. 11/4528, p. 128.

  33. 33.

    For more information see: Lipp (2007), p. 48.

  34. 34.

    Bundestag printed paper no. 11/4528, p. 122; BayObLG decision from 3 June 2002 no. 3Z BR 94/02 = FamRZ 2002, 1225 et seq.; BGH decision from 4 August 2010 no. XII ZB 167/10.

  35. 35.

    Roth 2010, part C, recital 2 et seq.

  36. 36.

    Powers of attorney “are also in the public interest as they avoid costly guardianship proceedings as well as the appointment of guardians who, if the ward is poor, have to be paid for by the general public” (Lipp 2007, p. 30). See also Bundestag printed paper no. 11/4528, p. 122.

  37. 37.

    More information: Lipp (2007).

  38. 38.

    A legally incompetent person may apply to the custodianship court to appoint a trusted person as his custodian. For more information, see Taupitz (2000a), p. A 102; Roth 2010, part C, recital 125; partial legal capacity sufficient according to, e.g., Baltz (2009), p. 77, with further reference; capacity to give informed consent sufficient according to, e.g., Diederichsen in: Palandt (2012), sec. 1904, rectial 26.

  39. 39.

    Information brochure on the custodianship law of the German Federal Ministry of Justice 2012, p. 31, http://www.bmj.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/broschueren_fuer_warenkorb/DE/Das_Betreuungsrecht.pdf (Last accessed: 17 July 2012).

  40. 40.

    Winterstein in: Jürgens (2010), sec. 167 BGB, recital 3; the content of such instruments is hardly provable and therefore cannot be verified; compare OLG Hamm decision from 12 May 2009 no. I-15 Wx 1-4/09 = FGPrax 2009, 217 (219). For this reason, some authors argue that a power of attorney for health care has to be in writing in any case; for example: Dodegge (2010a), p. 2630.

  41. 41.

    Bundestag printed paper no. 16/13314, p. 4.

  42. 42.

    LG Fulda decision from 30 April 2009 no. 16 Js 1/08 - 1 Ks = BeckRS 2010, 06420; LG Waldshut-Tiengen decision from 20 February 2006 no. 1T 161/05 = NJW 2006, 2270.

  43. 43.

    Bundestag printed paper no. 16/8442, p. 13.

  44. 44.

    Sec. 25 of the Certification Act (Beurkundungsgesetz) from 28 August 1969 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1513), as last changed by art. 2 of the Law of 22 December 2010 (Federal Law Gazette I, p. 2255).

  45. 45.

    May (2012).

  46. 46.

    Schicktanz et al. (2010), p. 365; Shalev (2010), p. 141.

  47. 47.

    Taupitz (2000a), p. A111 et seq.; compare also Decision III 2.3. of the Civil Law Section of the 63. German Jurists Forums 2000 = FamRZ 2000, 1484 (1485); Nationaler Ethikrat 2005, p. 33, different in cases of dementia, p. 34.

  48. 48.

    Lange (2009), p. 539; Spickhoff (2009), p. 1951, each with further references.

  49. 49.

    See above 1.2.

  50. 50.

    BGH decision from 10 October 2006 no. VI ZR 74/05 = MedR 2008, 289, with a comment by Lipp. Providing parents with information required also by OLG Karlsruhe, decision from 07.04.2010 no. 7 U 114/09 = BeckRS 2010, 08386. Further crit. comments: Kern ((2007)), p. 220412. One part of the literature had already demanded a similar system of “co-consent” of the minor capable of consenting and his parents; see Taupitz (2000a), pp. A 63 et seq.

  51. 51.

    More detailed: Taupitz (2000a), pp. A 58 et seq.

  52. 52.

    Lipp (2009), sec. 17, recital 127.

  53. 53.

    Roglmeier and Lenz (2009), p. 239; Schmitz (2009), p. 64; Diedrichsen in: Palandt (2012); Najdecki (2009), p. 2602.

  54. 54.

    LG Kleve decision from 31 May 2010 no. 4T 77/10 = NJW 2010, 2666 (2668). Accordingly, Diederichsen in: Palandt (2012), § 1901a, recital 18 with further references.

  55. 55.

    Najdecki (2009).

  56. 56.

    Schmitz (2009).

  57. 57.

    Bundestag printed paper no. 16/8442, p. 13.

  58. 58.

    During the parliamentarian debate, the German legislator relied on the number of 8.6 million living wills (ca. 10 % of the total population) that has been estimated by the German Hospice Foundation; compare Bundestag printed paper 16/8442, p. 8.

  59. 59.

    The legislator explicitly recognised this risk in Bundestag printed paper no. 16/8442, p. 14. See also Albrecht and Albrecht (2009), p. 428.

  60. 60.

    Critical on this: Höfling (2009), p. 2852; Lange (2009), p. 537; Olzen (2009), p. 362.

  61. 61.

    Bundestag printed paper no. 16/13314, p. 20. Compare also: Taupitz (2000b), p. 116.

  62. 62.

    Bundestag printed paper 16/13314, p. 5.

  63. 63.

    Id. at p. 4.

  64. 64.

    Seichter (2010), p. 162.

  65. 65.

    See also Taupitz and Weber-Hassemer (2006), p. 1117.

  66. 66.

    “Empfehlungen der Bundesärztekammer und der Zentralen Ethikkommission bei der Bundesärztekammer zum Umgang mit Vorsorgevollmacht und Patientenverfügung in der ärztlichen Praxis” 2010, p. A 882.

  67. 67.

    Synofzik (2007), p. 428, with further references; see also Public experts hearing of the Judicial Committee of the German Bundestag on living wills from 4 March 2009: expert opinion of Borasio, p. 8.

  68. 68.

    Procedural rules contained in sec. 287 and 298 FamFG (Diederichsen in: Palandt (2012), sec. 1897 BGB, recital 16); see also Taupitz (2010), p. 176.

  69. 69.

    Accordingly, Bundestag printed paper no. 16/8442, p. 11, 15.

  70. 70.

    Diederichsen in: Palandt (2012), sec. 1901a BGB, recital 20; Coeppicus (2010), p. 9.

  71. 71.

    Law of 20 February 2013 (Federal Law Gazette, part I, p. 277).

  72. 72.

    Diehn and Rebhahn (2010), p. 331.

  73. 73.

    Lipp (2009), sec. 17, recital 198 in conj. with sec. 16, recital 116; Taupitz (2010), p. 169.

References

  • Albrecht E, Albrecht A (2009) Die Patientenverfügung – jetzt gesetzlich geregelt. Mitteilungen des Bayerischen Notarvereins, der Notarkasse und der Landesnotarkammer Bayern 6:426–435

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltz P (2009) Lebenserhaltung als Haftungsgrund. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Brauer S, Biller-Andorno N, Andorno R (2009) Advance health care directives: towards a coordinated European policy? Eur J Health Law 16:207–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundesärztekammer (2013) Empfehlungen der Bundesärztekammer und der Zentralen Ethikkommission bei der Bundesärztekammer zum Umgang mit Vorsorgevollmacht und Patientenverfügung in der ärztlichen Praxis. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 110(33):A1580–A1585

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns JP, Edwards J, Johnson J, Cassem NH, Truog RD (2003) Do-not-resuscitate order after 25 years. Crit Care Med 31:1543–1550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements JM (2009) Patient perceptions on the use of advance directives and life prolonging technology. Am J Hosp Palliat Med 26:270–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coeppicus R (2010) Der Patientenwille gilt auch ohne Betreuer. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 31:9

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehn T, Rebhahn R (2010) Vorsorgevollmacht und Patientenverfügung. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 63:326–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodegge G (2010a) Die Entwicklung des Betreuungsrechts bis Anfang Juni 2010. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 63:2628–2633

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodegge R (ed) (2010b) Systematischer Praxiskommentar Betreuungsrecht. Bundesanzeiger, Cologne

    Google Scholar 

  • Emanuel LL (2008) Advance directives. Annu Rev Med 59:187–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillick MR (2004) Advance care planning. N Engl J Med 350:7–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillick MR (2006) The use of advance care planning to guide decisions about artificial nutrition and hydration. Nutr Clin Pract 21:126–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höfling W (2000) Forum – “Sterbehilfe” zwischen Selbstbestimmung und Integritätsschutz. JuS 111–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Höfling W (2009) Das neue Patientenverfügungsgesetz. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 62:2849–2851

    Google Scholar 

  • Jox RJ, Michalowski S, Lorenz J, Schildmann J (2008) Substitute decision making in medicine: comparative analysis of the ethico-legal discourse in England and Germany. Med Health Care Philos 11:153–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jürgens A (ed) (2010) Betreuungsrecht Kommentar. C. H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern B (2007) Einwilligung und Aufklärung Minderjähriger. Kommentierte BGH-Rechtsprechung Lindenmaier-Möhring 8(4):220412

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange W (2009) Das Patientenverfügungsgesetz - Überblick und kritische Würdigung. Zeitschrift für Erbrecht und Vermögensnachfolge 16:537–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Laufs A (1998) Zivilrichter über Leben und Tod? Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 46:3399–3401

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipp V (2007) Presentation and evaluation of the German legislation on enduring powers of attorney – a model other countries should consider adopting? In: Justisog politidepartementet (ed) Rapport “Nordisk seminar om framtidsfullmakter”, pp 29–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipp V (2009) Handbuch der Vorsorgeverfügungen. Vahlen, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewy EH (2004) Advance directives: good, bad or indifferent. Wien Klin Wochenschr 116:411–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May AT (2012) Verfügungsliste. Liste Vorsorglicher Verfügungen wie Patientenverfügung, Vorsorgevollmacht und Betreuungsverfügung. http://www.ethikzentrum.de/patientenverfuegung/verfuegungsliste/verfuegungen.html. Accessed 17 July 2012

  • Mirachi FL (2007) Does a living will equal a DNR? Are living wills compromising patient safety? J Emerg Med 33:299–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najdecki D (2009) Generalvollmacht mit Betreuungs- und Patientenverfügung. Neue Wirtschaftsbriefe 33:2594–2603

    Google Scholar 

  • Nationaler Ethikrat (2005) Patientenverfügung – Ein Instrument der Selbstbestimmung. http://www.ethikrat.org/dateien/pdf/Stellungnahme_Patientenverfuegung.pdf. Accessed 20 June 2012

  • Olzen D (2009) Die gesetzliche Neuregelung der Patientenverfügung. JR 9:354–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Palandt O (ed) (2012) Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, vol 71. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Parzeller M, Wenk M, Zedler B, Rothschild M (2012) cme: patient information and informed consent before and after medical intervention. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 104:576–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Public experts hearing of the Judicial Committee of the German Bundestag on living wills from 4 March 2009: expert opinion of Gian Domenico Borasio. http://www.ethikzentrum.de/plaintext/downloads/bundestag-ra-2009-03-04-wortprotokoll.pdf. Accessed 31 May 2013

  • Rinofner-Kreidl S (2010) Natürlicher Tod – Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) oder Allow Natural Death (AND)?: Zur Rolle der Sprache im Aufbau einer ethischen Kultur in medizinischen Kontexten. Psychologische Medizin 21:24–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Roglmeier J, Lenz N (2009) Live and let die - die gesetzlichen Neuregelungen zur Patientenverfügung. Zeitschrift für die Steuer- und Erbrechtspraxis 8:236–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahm S, Will R (2005) Angehörige als ‘natürliche’ Stellvertreter: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Präferenz von Personen als Bevollmächtigte für die Gesundheitssorge bei Patienten, Gesunden und medizinischem Personal. Ethik in der Medizin 17:7–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schicktanz S, Raz A, Shalev C (2010) The cultural context of end-of-life ethics: a comparison of Germany and Israel. Med Health Care Philos 13:363–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt FP (2009) DNR-Anordnungen. Das fehlende Bindeglied. Deutsches Ärzteblatt vol 106. A-1511/B-1292/C-1260

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz B (2009) Voraussetzungen und Umsetzung der Patientenverfügung nach neuem Recht: Ein dialogischer Prozess. Familienrecht und Familienverfahrensrecht 3:64–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Seichter J (2010) Einführung in das Betreuungsrecht. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Seitz (1998) Das OLG Frankfurt am Main und die Sterbehilfe. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 417–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalev C (2010) Reclaiming the patient’s voice and spirit in dying; an insight from Israel. Bioethics 24(3):134–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spickhoff A (2009) Rechtssicherheit kraft Gesetzes durch sog. Patientenverfügungen?: zum Dritten Gesetz zur Änderung des Betreuungsrechts. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht 56:1949–1958

    Google Scholar 

  • Strätling M, Strätling-Tölle H, Scharf VE, Schmucker P (2003) ‘Automatische’ gesetzliche Stellvertretung nicht entscheidungsfähiger Patienten durch ‘nahe Angehörige’?: Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem Reformvorschlag der Bund-Länder-Arbeitsgruppe ‘Betreuungsrecht’ aus sozialwissenschaftlicher, rechtstatsächlicher, medizinrechtlicher und ärztlich-praktischer Sicht. Medizinrecht 21:372–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Synofzik M (2007) PEG-Ernährung bei fortgeschrittener Demenz: eine evidenzgestützte ethische Analyse. Nervenarzt 78(4):418–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taupitz J (2000a) Empfehlen sich zivilrechtliche Regelungen zur Absicherung der Patientenautonomie am Ende des Lebens? Gutachten A für den 63. Deutschen Juristentag. C.H. Beck, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Taupitz J (2000b) Grenzen der Patientenautonomie. Archiv für Recht- und Sozialphilosophie-Beiheft 84:83–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Taupitz J (2010) Das Patientenverfügungsgesetz: Mehr Rechtssicherheit? Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik 15:155–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Taupitz J, Weber-Hassemer K (2006) Zur Verbindlichkeit von Patientenverfügungen. Festschrift für Adolf Laufs, pp 1107–1121

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolmein O (2010) Sterbehilfe: Wie mutmaßlich kann ein Wille sein? In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Blog on Biopolitics from 27 April 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • van Oosten (ed) (1999) Some reflections on emergencies as justification for medical intervention. In: Ahrens HJ, Von Bar C, Fischer G, Spickhoff A, Taupitz J (eds) Festschrift für Erwin Deutsch. Carl Heymanns, Cologne, pp 673–684

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for German, European and International Medical Law, Public Health Law and Bioethics of the Universities of Heidelberg and Mannheim (IMGB), Mannheim, Germany

    Jochen Taupitz

Authors
  1. Jochen Taupitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jochen Taupitz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Sciences School of Law, University of Salerno, Fisciano, Salerno, Italy

    Stefania Negri

  2. IMGB, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Jochen Taupitz

  3. IMBG, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Amina Salkić

  4. IMGB, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg, Germany

    Anna Zwick

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Taupitz, J. (2013). Patient’s Autonomy According to German Law. In: Negri, S., Taupitz, J., Salkić, A., Zwick, A. (eds) Advance Care Decision Making in Germany and Italy. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Deutsches, Europäisches und Internationales Medizinrecht, Gesundheitsrecht und Bioethik der Universitäten Heidelberg und Mannheim, vol 41. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40555-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation