Scholarlink

<p>The current regulation of abortion under §&#xa0;218 <i>Strafgesetzbuch</i> (StGB, criminal code) places reproductive medicine in a&#xa0;legal framework that is incompatible with both medical ethics and constitutional law. The distinction between a&#xa0;“counseling-based” (§&#xa0;218a&#xa0;(1)) and a&#xa0;“medically indicated” (§&#xa0;218a&#xa0;(2)) abortion is not clinically tenable. In practice, both depend on the woman’s assessment of whether continuation of the pregnancy remains bearable in light of her medical and psychosocial situation. There is no objective medical threshold that can define this boundary without violating human dignity through state-imposed value judgments about life. Criminal law presupposes clear, objectively verifiable wrongdoing and leads to legal uncertainty, discourages physicians from offering care, and undermines the trust essential for reproductive medicine. Using the example of a hospital with religious affiliations, it is illustrated how religious institutions prevent even legally permissible abortions through internal bans. The authors advocate for decriminalization and point to the need for true protection of life through counseling, social support, and medical care—not through criminalization.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Zwischen Recht, Ethik und Verantwortung: Warum § 218 StGB nicht ins Strafrecht gehört

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月7日

查看全文
  • Joachim Volz,
  • Jörg Scheinfeld,
  • Jessica Hamed,
  • Michael Schmidt-Salomon,
  • Till Müller-Heidelberg,
  • Hartmut Kreß

摘要

The current regulation of abortion under § 218 Strafgesetzbuch (StGB, criminal code) places reproductive medicine in a legal framework that is incompatible with both medical ethics and constitutional law. The distinction between a “counseling-based” (§ 218a (1)) and a “medically indicated” (§ 218a (2)) abortion is not clinically tenable. In practice, both depend on the woman’s assessment of whether continuation of the pregnancy remains bearable in light of her medical and psychosocial situation. There is no objective medical threshold that can define this boundary without violating human dignity through state-imposed value judgments about life. Criminal law presupposes clear, objectively verifiable wrongdoing and leads to legal uncertainty, discourages physicians from offering care, and undermines the trust essential for reproductive medicine. Using the example of a hospital with religious affiliations, it is illustrated how religious institutions prevent even legally permissible abortions through internal bans. The authors advocate for decriminalization and point to the need for true protection of life through counseling, social support, and medical care—not through criminalization.