A man who was treated with neuroleptics against his will in psychiatry successfully defended himself against this before the Federal Constitutional Court.
In two rulings published on Friday, the judges of the Second Senate largely found the man right.
They made it clear that state protection obligations do not justify the compulsory treatment of a person, provided that he has excluded the treatment and does not endanger third parties.
As a result of criminal proceedings, the man was permanently housed in the penal system of a district hospital.
He had previously made it clear in a living will that he forbade any person treating him to administer neuroleptics against his will.
In September 2016, the district hospital nevertheless applied for compulsory treatment for the man because he suffered from paranoid-hallucinatory schizophrenia.
The treatment is necessary to protect him from irreversible damage to organic brain health.
The district court had consented to the treatment
Marlene Grunert
Editor in politics.
Follow I follow
The responsible regional court consented to the continuation of the treatment.
The higher regional court rejected one of the man's complaints.
After a further extension of the daily treatment, the higher regional court overturned the decision and referred the case back to the regional court.
There the judges decided that the living will did not preclude compulsory treatment.
The Constitutional Court has now made it clear that any medical treatment against the will of a person interferes with their fundamental right to physical integrity.
This right not only protects physical integrity, but also the right to self-determination;
In this respect, compulsory treatment with psychotropic drugs is particularly difficult.
The decision states: “This applies with regard to the effects of neuroleptics with a view to the possibility of serious, irreversible and life-threatening side effects, which cannot be ruled out.
Psychotropic drugs are also aimed at changing mental processes.
Its administration against the natural will of the person concerned therefore touches especially the core of the personality, regardless of whether it is enforced with physical force. "
The judges emphasize that such an interference can be justified under strict conditions - provided that the protection of third parties is at stake.
The right to physical integrity of the person concerned could also trigger a state duty to protect, i.e. justify compulsory treatment.
But that does not apply if she had ruled out such treatment and was able to understand it. Because, according to the judges: "The individual is fundamentally free to decide about interfering with his physical integrity and dealing with his health at his own discretion."