deutsche Fassung


Version española

Русская версия

Version française

Right to life or duty to vegetate?

published on December 10th, 2020 abbreviated under the title "Life is Mortal" on

by Werner Müller
According to Federal Minister of Health Jens Spahn, the right to life of those potentially suffering from Sars-Cov-2 is also a basic right. He countered the opposition on November 18, 2020 in the Bundestag debate on the Third Civil Protection Act. This view apparently determines the political strategy in dealing with the Sars-Cov-2 virus and the Covid-19 disease it caused according to the World Health Organization. This explains why the citizens' rights and freedoms enshrined in the Basic Law have been massively restricted for months. In his article, the author deals with Spahn's statement with the help of four theses.


(Photo submitted to visualize the topic - instead a photo with dead leaves appeared)


trees do not grow into the sky

There are around 6.7 million citizens over 80, 535,000 of them die every year and 745,000 are added. Trees do not grow to the sky, however, and the 80+ age group will stop growing one day. A mortality rate that has increased by around 200,000 cases a year is inevitable in the medium term because of demographics alone. That would be an increase of around 20 percent. Old people don't die according to plan, not because a clock is running out. Rather, they get sick, or an existing illness worsens. Illnesses that would not be a problem for young people are life-threatening for the elderly. This basically applies to every disease.
On average from 2017 to 2019, 3.28 percent of the deceased were younger than 50 (tendency constant), 40.47 percent between 60 and 79 (tendency falling) and 56.25 percent 80 or older (tendency rising). Mortality follows waves. The spread of viruses of all kinds leads to an increase, but also to heat waves with the consequent stress on the cardiovascular system. The patients who died with a Covid 19 infection were (as of November 20, 2020) 4.69 percent under 50, 30.36 percent between 60 and 79 and 64.82 percent 80 years or older. These are natural processes and humans are relatively powerless against them. Even if an old person survives a risk, they can die from another cause a few months later. Life is perilous and it always ends in death!

No right to eternal life

Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the German Basic Law (GG) with the right to life does not grant the right to eternal life. The right to physical integrity is also not a safeguard against illness or accidents. The risk of accident, illness or force majeure is part of the general risk to life of every person, against which the state cannot effectively protect its citizens. It is only a matter of the citizens' right to defend themselves against the state, which must not harm or endanger life and health. Fundamental rights are always only valid as the right of the citizen against the state. But it does not pose any threat to life.
Dying from an illness or from the consequences of an accident is not a violation of fundamental rights. A state can never be able to protect its citizens from such risks. Article 2 (2) of the Basic Law could at most prohibit the state from creating additional risks. But that would also have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. If one were to consider Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law to be relevant, then this would restrict the political room for maneuver in a way that is no longer compatible with the rule of law. Closing an inefficient hospital would likely result in additional deaths if at some point a sick or injured person did not survive being transported to a more distant hospital. Even so, closing this House would be a normal political decision and not unconstitutional. Nor can a citizen ask to have an additional hospital on his doorstep. Because of the absurdity of such a requirement, illness and natural death cannot be cases in which the right to life is impaired.
Health protection can only be understood as a state goal within the framework of the welfare state requirement. According to this, the state should also organize adequate health care. Inadequate and exaggerated health protection, which overburdens the economy and affects healthy people en masse in their basic rights, can no longer be justified with the welfare state requirement.

Nobody can pay for “what ever it takes”!

The WHO defines health as a state of complete physical, mental, emotional and social well-being. Such a health term is quite inflationary. Health is certainly more than the absence of illness. A state of complete physical, mental, emotional and social well-being is desirable, but how healthy a person feels also depends on individual feelings. Also physically or mentally disabled or old people who lack complete well-being can otherwise be healthy and satisfied with their lives. In my opinion, the pursuit of social well-being can no longer be subsumed under health. Social contacts can promote health and social isolation can make you sick. In my opinion, these aspects are just as little health problems as the road traffic regulations, which can increase or reduce the causes of accidents.
Of course, the WHO is not neutral with its constitution, but guided by the interests of its financiers, the medical and pharmaceutical lobby. In our society, doctors are also acting more and more from an economic point of view. As an entrepreneur, you want to generate revenue. 90 percent sick is a bomb business for doctors and pharmaceutical companies. In this industry growth is guaranteed; you just have to invent a new disease. Children used to be lively and they might be stressful for their parents. Today doctors diagnose them with ADHD, then they are sedated with psychotropic drugs and the parents have their peace of mind. It is not the people who are sick, but a health system that creates such tendencies.
And our health system is becoming more and more expensive. In 2018, Germany was in third place worldwide in terms of costs with 11.2 percent of gross domestic product (= economic output), behind Switzerland with 12.2 percent and the USA with 16.9 percent. In 2015 it was still in 5th place with 11.0 percent, behind Sweden with 11.0 percent, Switzerland with 11.1 percent, the Netherlands with 11.1 percent - now only 11th with 9.9 percent! hopelessly undersupplied? - and the USA with 16.4 percent. The average for the OECD countries was 8.8 percent in 2018 and 8.9 percent in 2015. (OECD 2019, Health at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, [OECD Publishing, Paris,] ( p. 153)
In the development in Germany, a very interesting correlation can be observed between the number of doctors and the amount of annual expenditure. Spending is increasing because there are more doctors! In the last 9 years, expenditure rose by an average of 2.4 percent annually, adjusted for price, and the number of licensed doctors by 2.1 percent.

Since 1992 (first figures for all of Germany) the number of licensed doctors has risen by 60 percent (+ 20.5 percent compared to 2010), expenses adjusted for price by 67 percent (+ 24 percent compared to 2010). ([Source: Federal Statistical Office] (; jsessionid=E0CB2588B2E37CF0BFD75748F6E69CF7.internet8742) and [Statista] (https://de.
But were we really undersupplied in 1992? Did people die en masse because there weren't enough doctors? In other industries, new products are being developed to stimulate economic growth. Are medical professionals inventing new diseases? Money makes the world go round! The doctors make their diagnosis, the citizens swallow everything, and the health insurance pays! If they had to pay the bill themselves, they would not go to the doctor, and in many cases they would get well again. But they don't think about the fact that they'll end up paying the bill for the health insurance contributions themselves.

More than the sum of body functions

“The lesson can be drawn, especially from the experience of old people's and nursing homes, that life is more than the sum of body functions, more than just vegetating. It also needs the content and quality of life that have been drastically restricted, especially for the residents of old people's and nursing homes of Rhineland-Palatinate] (
If one understands the right to life in this sense and in connection with Art. 1 GG, regarding human dignity, as the right to quality of life, then the right to life is currently being massively restricted without even the Enabling Act of November 18, 2020 (insert from § 28a IfSG - on the term [see] (https: // - that would allow. Here, too, the state does not have to ensure quality of life; In terms of a right of defense, however, the state must not destroy the quality of life of its citizens.
In continuation of this thought, a peaceful and dignified death must also be protected by the right to life. Death is the end of life. The state does not have to ensure a peaceful and dignified death, but neither may it disturb or artificially prolong the dying process. A dignified and self-determined end to life should also be a goal of health policy, although, viewed in isolation, death is the opposite of health. On the other hand, excessive medical care, especially at the end of life, must not be a goal of health policy. Less is more!

Technical idiocy as Spirit of Time

The Bible says in Psalm 90 verse 12: “Teach us to remember that we must die so that we may become wise.” Man does not become wise through his death, but through reflection. The Christian ruling parties have decided against the wisdom of the Bible. They want to save every life at any cost in the alleged pandemic and not think about the meaningfulness of their policies. Even non-Christians shouldn't mind becoming wise through thought, with or without God's help.
It is not uncommon for politicians to walk around the world with blinkers and not see the forest for the trees. You get advice from experts who were trained in think tanks and who can only think streamlined. Such experts used to be called technical idiots. Thinking outside the box and thinking outside the box of your own subject area no longer corresponds to the zeitgeist. But maybe there are still people who have not forgotten these skills.

Wrong path of the BVerfG

In a judgment of February 15, 2006 (1 BvR 357/05), the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) declared Section 14 (3) of the Aviation Security Act to be unconstitutional, which allowed the locking of a hijacked aircraft that was intended to be used by terrorists as a weapon. The statement of reasons for the judgment included the sentence: "Human life and human dignity enjoy the same constitutional protection regardless of the duration of the physical existence of the individual."
It cannot be assumed that the fathers and mothers of the Basic Law who, on the basis of the results of the Constitutional Convention of Herrenchiemsee in August 1948, i.e. 3 years after the end of the war, wanted this interpretation. During the war it was common in all armies and therefore not an expression of an inhuman ideology that fathers of families should be spared from extremely dangerous missions if possible. Children were evacuated primarily to protect their lives. For this generation it was a matter of course that there could be emergency situations in which chances of survival had to be allocated and that in such situations priority must be given to those who still had their lives ahead of them. And even today, almost all grandparents would protest vigorously if their grandchildren were to have the same life as their own. Of course, children's lives are worth more and almost all grandparents would give up their own lives to save their grandchildren!
With the aim of protecting the grandparents, the lives of elementary school children are currently being risked - what a wrong world! Most hygiene concepts stipulate that the children should enter the school via the school yard in order to avoid crowds of people in front of the regular entrances; they are often locked. The safer way to school concepts with zebra crossings and pedestrian traffic lights are aimed at the main entrances. In order to get to the schoolyard, the primary school children have to use unsafe ways to school. The life of the children is indifferent to the politicians, because children are not voters and the elderly are the regular voters of the CDU and SPD! Unworldly politicians under their Berlin cheese bells cannot imagine that ordinary people still cling to traditional values, that they are not as selfish as young politicians and that they would rather risk their own life than that of their grandchildren.
In the play Terror, Ferdinand von Schirach recreated a court hearing about a Bundeswehr pilot who shot down a hijacked airliner in a fictitious situation based on September 11, 2001. As a special feature, Schirach has planned two different pronouncements of verdicts, and the audience should vote on whether the pilot should be convicted of murder or acquitted. In all performances, the audience voted for acquittal. In a television version, 86.9% of the viewers voted for the acquittal and only 13.1% followed the arguments of the BVerfG.
Ferdinand von Schirach is the grandson of the Nazi Reich Youth Leader Baldur von Schirach and his wife Henriette, a daughter of Hitler photographer Heinrich Hoffmann. It would have been easy to put him in the Nazi corner and accuse the overwhelming majority of the people of a right-wing extremist worldview. But the leading media shied away from that.
The legal opinion of the vast majority of the population is to be approved. The judges of the Federal Constitutional Court, on the other hand, had a board in front of their heads! But to err is human. The principle of equality from Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law demands that what is equal and what is different be treated differently. Only with an eternal life would it be unimportant whether someone is 8 or 80 years old. But because we don't live forever, the 8-year-old has 80 years to go, and the 80-year-old - assuming good health - 8 years to go. According to Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, this must not be treated in the same way.
The quoted judgment also states that the right to life "... protects the biological-physical existence of every person from the time of their creation to the onset of death, regardless of the living conditions of the individual, his physical and mental state of mind ...". The concept of life is thus reduced here to vegetation. From this it can be concluded that the right to quality of life has yet to be fought for politically. Politicians have adopted the BVerfG's mistake and are now acting accordingly. The life of old people is prolonged by a few months and the quality of life of the younger generation is destroyed in return. It will probably have to be the advanced age groups who have to fight for their children and grandchildren's right to
Youth instead of old aging
Education instead of factual knowledge
Party and fun instead of lockdown
Love and falling in love instead of contact restrictions
Party, fun and love is a prerogative of young people, but of course not a right only for young people.
Even if it is a blasphemy in our country to criticize the BVerfG, there is no getting around it. The author must therefore risk being burned at a virtual stake for it. He also accepts that for the quality of life of his children.

Worth of life

Anyone who has to estimate at the age of 60 that 75% of their life already consists of the past wants to maximize the value of the remaining quarter. He will also analyze that his health will slowly deteriorate and that he will no longer be able to repeat his youth. Nevertheless, these people want to live instead of vegetating. So you have to fill your life with content and quality in order not to waste the scarce time following the thought of Psalm 90 verse 12.
Quality of life and the content of life are related and complement each other. One part can be replaced by the other to give meaning to one's life. A meaningless life, on the other hand, is like vegetating. Both components must be viewed subjectively. The mass of people will strive for a balanced relationship between quality of life and life content. But there are also extremes. Every combination is to be respected in principle.
Quality of life is determined by internal and external factors. It consists in the ability to leave the home and take part in social life. In the case of frailty or illness, this option is severely limited. Social contacts are also an important quality factor. In the case of restricted mobility, compensations are possible if you are visited more often than visiting yourself. Many fellow citizens see a quality factor in the consumption of luxury foods. If this is restricted for health reasons, they rate this loss as a reduced quality of life. A decision to live for life instead of foregoing quality of life would then be logical and consistent.
The quality of life can also assume a negative value if the loss of the previous quality of life coincides with pain and suffering. A temporary minus value is overshadowed by the perspective of recovery and restoration of quality of life. Without this perspective, however, people with a negative quality of life develop the understandable desire not to unnecessarily postpone the end of their lives.
Content of life can replace quality of life. There are people who live for an idea or for other people. They feel joy when they can make others happy. They suffer when they cause harm to others or become a burden on them. The idea of being a useful member of society gives them a purpose in life, and they would find life purely for fun as pointless. The realization that you are no longer able to contribute leaves a feeling of emptiness. If the need for help or care is added, the content of life becomes negative. Anyone who has defined themselves as a giving person for their entire life feels painful to be a burden to loved ones and thus deprive them of quality of life. Here, too, the unwanted taking role can be endured with a perspective of recovery and ending the need for help. However, it must be accepted when people perceive the need for permanent care as a negative content in life, and who perceive their potential lifetime as worthless.
For the elderly, it is important to balance their combination of quality of life and the purpose of life. As long as health allows, the goal of maximizing quality of life is very understandable. After that, it is important to replace the declining quality of life with other content. The young should accept it when the elderly no longer attach any value to a life devoid of content and without quality of life.

Formula for the value of life

If you want to maximize a value, you have to know the starting point and be able to evaluate your goals. Life can never be saved, it can only be extended. The extension can be 80 years for a rescued child, 8 years for a healthy 80 year old, and 8 months for a sick child. The average statistical life expectancy can be found at the Federal Statistical Office. But there is no legal entitlement to this. If you have poor health standards, you can assume less. In the case of previous illnesses, the attending physician may even have a specific assessment. But there is usually little that people can change about this size. Knowing this, a rationally thinking person would calculate the value of a life as follows:

With an increase in the quality of life and the meaning of life, the value of life, i.e. me, can be multiplied if the remaining life expectancy is short.
The valuation in monetary units is difficult and actually not ethically justifiable. The formula described helps to assess whether a great deal of expenditure for medical treatment can still be justified. An affected person thinks first of the pain and physical stress that he would have to endure. Elderly people then ask themselves whether this suffering is worth it for the short time that only remains for them with a poor quality of life.
With this knowledge, society can also ask more far-reaching questions. In the text of the five lockdown-critical professors dated 04/28/20 with which the short question dated 05/11/20 was justified ( and the Author had largely formulated the following provocative passage: “The government's measures also appear disproportionate in view of the enormous economic and social damage they cause. If, because of the predominantly old age and previous illnesses, everyone who was potentially rescued had an average of 1,000 days remaining, even with 200,000 fatalities avoided, only 200 million days would be saved. With economic damage of € 1,000 billion, that would be € 5,000 per day of life saved, and that probably with a severely reduced quality of life. There is no justification for these high costs. The measures that cause economic damage of this magnitude are therefore disproportionate. In addition, it must be taken into account how many people have already died as a result of the unnecessary cancellation of vital operations and how many will also die due to the foreseeable cut in health expenditure after a deep recession. ”The author takes full responsibility for this formulation.
It should be an exception if society feels overwhelmed. In the case of a few affected people, she is able to provide them with a very complex treatment. But exceptions confirm the rule, and the majority of people can accept it if in these exceptional situations compromises are made in medical care instead of ruining the economy and thus their own future or that of their children and grandchildren. In these exceptional situations, when society is threatened with excessive demands, the question may be asked whether the financial outlay for extending life is not too high. Thinking patterns that an affected person would apply themselves may be used.