The
Swiss Criminal Code of 1937 outlaws "incitement or assistance to suicide from selfish motives" (Art. 115). Any active role in
voluntary euthanasia ("manslaughter on request") is also outlawed, even if done with "respectable motives" such as
mercy killings (Art. 114). However,
by omission,
assisted suicide from non-selfish motives remains legal. For example, lethal drugs may be prescribed as long as the recipient takes an active role in the drug administration, but active euthanasia (such as the act of administering a lethal injection) is not legal. Nonprofit organisations administering life-ending medicine were first established in Switzerland in the 1980s. Article 115 of the
Swiss Criminal Code reads: This regulation of assisted suicide also permits the assistance of voluntary euthanasia for non-resident foreigners, which has led to the phenomenon of "
suicide tourism". This legal requirement, enshrined in the
Swiss Criminal Procedure Code, imposes significant financial burdens on cantons, particularly with the increasing number of foreign nationals seeking assisted suicide. These investigations typically involve medical examinations and legal inquiries, leading to substantial costs. Cantons have explored various strategies to manage these expenses, but the obligation to investigate remains a core principle. The
canton of Solothurn, for instance, has implemented a cost-saving agreement with
Pegasos, an assisted suicide organization. By requiring video evidence of self-administration and supplementary information, Solothurn reduces the need for extensive on-site investigations, transferring the body for a more cost-effective forensic examination covered by the organization. Additionally, the burden of such costs are held by Pegasos, which passes it back to those seeking assisted suicide, reducing costs to the state. This model highlights the ongoing tension between legal requirements and the practical challenges of managing assisted suicide procedures. While other cantons grapple with similar cost pressures, the Solothurn initiative is distinctive in its cost-sharing arrangement. The broader discussion continues regarding the classification of assisted suicide and the necessity of current investigative protocols, with organizations advocating for a more streamlined, less financially burdensome approach. == Debate and notable cases ==