Latest News

Modern conventional medicine increasingly tends to treat the patient not as an individual, but as a statistical average. So-called "medical guidelines", which are often drafted by industry-linked committees, severely restrict the treating physician's scope of action. Today, out of fear of liability claims, many doctors act only according to rigid algorithms – even when their medical common sense tells them that a different path would be better for the specific patient.

However, every human being is a biological unique. What helps one person can harm another. With this paragraph in our new declaration of sovereignty, you free your doctor from the legal corset of the guideline dictate. You explicitly call upon them to use their therapeutic freedom and to treat you as a unique being with your individual medical history. Lodge your objection against schematic assembly-line medicine.

Download: Declaration of Patient Sovereignty (PDF)

Intensive care medicine is now capable of delaying biological death for weeks and months, even when there is no prospect of recovery or a tolerable life. In a profit-oriented healthcare system, this unfortunately all too often leads to dying people being misused in their final days as mere billing objects for high-cost, machine-driven measures. This is the exact opposite of dignity and lived humanity.

This section of our declaration makes it unmistakably clear: Your body does not belong to the clinic's balance sheet. When life inevitably comes to an end, gentle accompaniment, the alleviation of pain, and support have top priority – not the artificial, mechanical maintenance of organ functions. Furthermore, we demand the fundamental right to be able to request a humane release in a hopeless situation of suffering, if this is the explicit will of the patient.

Download: Declaration of Patient Sovereignty (PDF)

With the debate surrounding the so-called "opt-out solution" (objection solution) for organ donation, an attempt is being made to subtly reverse the principle of self-determination. The state virtually declares the citizen's body to be public property after death, unless they have explicitly objected during their lifetime. We consider this approach to be ethically highly questionable and extremely dangerous.

A state must not have an automatic right of access to the physical substance of its citizens – neither during their lifetime nor in death. The donation of an organ must always remain an act of conscious, voluntary gifting. Through this point in the document, you set a clear legal boundary: Without your explicit, written consent granted during your lifetime, your body remains absolutely unavailable.

Protect yourself and take your autonomy into your own hands. Download the official and tamper-proof template of the Julius Hackethal Foundation here, fill it out, and keep it with your personal documents:

Find out more on our topic page … Download: Declaration of Patient Sovereignty (PDF)

The debate on organ donation is often reduced to a seemingly simple question: How can we save more lives? But this question falls short. We must first ask ourselves what price we are willing to pay for this rescue – namely in terms of freedom, dignity, and self-determination.

The Julius Hackethal Foundation has taken a clear stance: We reject the opt-out system, where everyone is automatically considered a donor unless they explicitly object. This position is not a lack of compassion, but an expression of deep respect for human autonomy.

The Human Being as an End, Not a Means

Julius Hackethal himself fought his entire life against a medicine that turns people into objects. He condemned the "mutilation strategy" of conventional medicine and advocated for giving patients more say in decisions about their future and their death. He knew: True help can only arise where the will of the individual is at the centre – not statistical considerations or the economic exploitation of organs.

Organ donation is a gift – and a gift requires a free giver. It is an act of solidarity whose value derives precisely from the fact that it cannot be coerced. Those who introduce the opt-out system turn an ethical act of charity into state confiscation. The body, the last place of our sovereignty, is declared a public resource.

The Market and Responsibility

Some argue from the scarcity of organs and demand that only those who are themselves willing to donate should receive an organ. This logic of an alleged exchange transaction misunderstands the essence of solidarity. It would be as if a baker only sold bread to those who had passed the master's examination themselves. The market does not function on the principle of reciprocity, but on the principle of need. Those in need must not first be asked whether they have "earned" this need.

I already put forward this argument in the 1990s in the debate on healthcare reform. It is not about abolishing the welfare state, but about protecting it from those who inwardly undermine it (Mammutherz).

The Dignity of the Human Being Is Inviolable

The decision for or against organ donation is deeply personal. It may be shaped by fears, religious convictions, or simply a discomfort with one's own mortality. The major Christian denominations speak out in favour of organ donation, but respect the individual's freedom of choice. We must protect this freedom – not only in theory, but also in practice.

The JHS has made it its mission to strengthen patient autonomy and to respect the dignity of every individual. By rejecting the opt-out system, we remain true to this commitment.

Cast your vote – not only for or against organ donation, but for your freedom of choice. For this freedom is the foundation of every human society.