12. Juli 2024 – In its decision of 27 May 2024, the Federal Supreme Court ruled on the appeal by A. against the Cantonal Office of Public Health Bern (Gesundheitsamt des Kantons Bern) and the Directorate of Health, Social Affairs, and Integration of the Canton of Bern (Gesundheits-, Sozial- und Integrationsdirektion, GSI). The case concerned A.'s request to exclude the application of the ethical guidelines of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences (Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften, SAMW Guidelines) for all future medical services provided to him.

Specifically, A. requested a declaratory ruling (Feststellungsverfügung) of the Cantonal Office of Public Health that the SAMW Guidelines would not apply to all of his future treatments by doctors based in the Canton of Berne and that non-compliance with the SAMV Guidelines by doctors rendering services to him would not lead to disciplinary action. The Cantonal Office for Public Health and the Directorate of Health, Social Affairs, and Integration dismissed A.’s request, leading A. to appeal to the Cantonal Administrative Court, which upheld the dismissal.

The Court evaluated the appeal and found that A.'s request did not meet the criteria for issuing a declaratory ruling. The Court noted that A. had already unambiguously opted out of the SAMW Guidelines, creating a clear legal basis for his treatment preferences. The Court also highlighted that the SAMW Guidelines were private rules and not binding laws. Therefore, doctors must respect A.'s treatment wishes as per existing legal standards, ensuring his self-determination rights. Furthermore, A. could specify his treatment wishes for future treatments in the event of losing the power of judgement in his patient decree (Patientenverfügung). The requested declaratory decree was therefore not necessary, according to which A. lacked a legitimate interest in the proceedings.

Additionally, the Court determined that there was no need for a declaratory ruling to resolve A.'s concerns about potential disciplinary actions against doctors, as the SAMW Guidelines serve as interpretative aids rather than binding rules.

The Court therefore dismissed A.'s appeal and upheld the Cantonal Administrative Court's decision, confirming that A. is not entitled to the declaratory ruling he sought.

For more information, see here.