Killed husband willing to die: BGH acquits woman after insulin overdose

According to the BGH, a woman who injected her seriously ill husband with a lethal dose of insulin at his request after taking pills was not punishable. Patient advocates sharply criticize the decision.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has acquitted a woman who had injected her bedridden husband with a fatal overdose of insulin at his request. The sixth criminal senate in Leipzig decided that the former nurse “was not punishable under any aspect”.

Because it was not her, but her husband, who had been ill for years, that controlled the events leading to death, according to the decision now published on June 28th. The man initially took tablets on his own that were supposed to kill him – the insulin served primarily “to ensure death”. He was also conscious for a while and could have asked to dial 911.

The BGH therefore assessed the event as a “uniform life-ending act, the execution of which alone” was determined by the man. His wife injected him with insulin because it was difficult for him due to his illness-related impairments. She did not kill her husband by doing anything. Rather, it is about unpunished assisted suicide, because the “death-willing person had the freedom to decide about his fate to the end”. The BGH also referred to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court on suicide.

Previous suspended sentence revoked

In November 2020, the district court in Stendal sentenced the woman to one year in prison on probation for killing on demand. Her husband put his life in her hands. However, the BGH said that “does not do justice to the special features of the case”.

The man had suffered from various illnesses and great pains for many years and often expressed the wish to die. On the day of his death, he first took all the medicines available in the house and then asked his wife to inject him with all the insulin she had, which she did. He died from hypoglycaemia as a result of the high dose of insulin.

The tablets taken were also likely to kill him, but only at a later point in time, the BGH explained. It was “ultimately due to coincidence that the insulin caused his death, while the drugs would only have developed their deadly effect at a later point in time”. At the woman’s request, her husband had documented his attitude in writing.

criticism from patient advocates

The German Foundation for Patient Protection criticized the decision of the Federal Court of Justice. “So the dam to active euthanasia broke,” said board member Eugen Brysch. “Surprisingly, the BGH assumed that a person capable of consenting and acting could not implement their will themselves.” This is an endorsement of someone else’s killing.

“With its decision, the Federal Court of Justice has de facto lifted the criminal prohibition on killing on request,” said Brysch. The Bundestag must “clarify the ban on euthanasia with full selectivity”. Brysch expressed the fear that social pressure on the elderly, those in need of care, the seriously ill and people with disabilities could increase.

(Az. 6 StR 68/21)