對於安樂死通常區分積極安樂死及消極安樂死。前者問題著重於能否將此視為殺人罪，或同意殺人罪而能被正當化，或其阻卻責任要件應該為何。後者則討論其範圍及於何處。在刑法中對延命措置之中止認為應係「不作為犯」抑或「作為犯」有所爭議。對應於此，延命措置之中止應在消極安樂死範疇上理解，還是認為屬於積極安樂死的範疇中而有爭議。本文並論及安樂死、尊嚴死之刑法上規定與立法之必要性。同時以病患臨終時要求醫師中止治療，其法上意義的問 題作為本文議論之中心，檢討有關名古屋高等法院、橫濱地 方法院所形成之要件判斷。並舉出2007 年厚生勞動省公布 「有關臨終醫療決定程序之指導方針」、2014 年「人生最終 階段中有關醫療意識調查報告書」等相關意識，並分析2015 年議員聯盟對本問題之法制動向，與有關臨終醫療中尊重患 者意思之法律案，以及日本律師聯合會對此法案之批判論 點。 最後以比較法觀點提出其中止措置要件，有無決定使之 成為適法之「法規範」之必要性。

Euthanasia usually distinguish between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia. Former questions focused on whether this as a homicide, or agree to murder can be justified, or what its elements should prevent liability. Discuss its scope and where in the latter. Suspension of life-dealing with criminal law should be, "omission" or "as made" debate. Corresponding to this, subsistence process to abort should be understood in passive euthanasia, aspects, are considered as falling within the category of active euthanasia and controversial. This article does and euthanasia, death with dignity of the criminal law provisions and the necessity of legislation. Patients dying at the same time require the physician to suspend treatment, its importance as a center of discussion in this paper on the law, review the Nagoya High Court, formed by the Yokohama District Court's judgment. Both 2007 MHLW announced "guidelines relating to death medical decisions program" in 2014, "research report on health care in the final stage of life consciousness" and other related awareness, and 2015 legal trends in the League on this issue of, and legal cases relating to dying in medical patients with respect, as well as the Japan lawyers ' Association criticism of arguments on the Bill. Finally, proposed the suspension of processing elements from a comparative law perspective, there is no decision to make it a legal "norm" of necessity.