Doctor, Please Help Me Die
Language: English
Published by iUniverse, 2013
- Softcover
- New
Condition: New
US$ 22.51
Quantity: Over 20 available
Add to basketItem description from seller
Dieser Artikel ist ein Print on Demand Artikel und wird nach Ihrer Bestellung fuer Sie gedruckt. KlappentextrnrnDeath comes for us all, and the desire to ease into that death is as ancient as humankind. The idea that sometimes it is better to die quickly and in control of that death-rather than linger in pain and misery once impending death.
Seller Inventory # 447880539
- Title
- Doctor, Please Help Me Die
- Author
- Preston MD, Tom
- Publisher
- iUniverse
- Publication year
- 2013
- Condition
- New
- Binding
- Soft cover
- Language
- English
- ISBN 10
- 1475963793
- ISBN 13
- 9781475963793
"Synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
DOCTOR, PLEASE HELP ME DIE
By Tom Preston Janice HarperiUniverse, Inc.
Copyright © 2013 Tom Preston, MDAll right reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4759-6379-3
Contents
Acknowledgments....................................................ixIntroduction.......................................................xiChapter 1 A Short History of the Right to Die.....................1Chapter 2 Framing the Issue.......................................20Chapter 3 From Hippocrates to Lasagna.............................50Chapter 4 Physician, Heal Thy Patient.............................73Chapter 5 Medically Managed Dying.................................90Chapter 6 Professional Imperatives................................111Chapter 7 Legal and Political Issues..............................127Conclusion.........................................................139Recommendations....................................................150Notes..............................................................161Index..............................................................173
Chapter One
A Short History of the Right to DieIF TO KILL IS a cruelty because it robs one of life, what does it mean to rob a person of death? Society has long grappled with the question of whether it is morally acceptable for physicians to end the suffering of someone who is dying. But I ask a different question here: Is it morally acceptable for physicians to refuse to do so? If a physician can ease a person's suffering and make his or her final moments of life endurable and peaceful by helping the patient die, is it wrong to refuse to do so? Could nonaction be a greater cruelty than action when someone's pain is agonizing and readily ended by medication or other help from his or her physician?
Consider the case of Heracles. Heracles, or Hercules as he is more commonly called, was the half-god son of Zeus and the beautiful, mortal Alcmene. Zeus endowed his son with superhuman strength, an attribute that made him a rather troublesome child but nevertheless enabled him to conquer pretty much any challenge he was presented. When Heracles found himself in a bit of a mess for slaughtering his family (his superhuman strength surpassed only by his superhuman temper, a temper brought on by madness inflicted by his vengeful stepmother, Hera), he was punished by having to endure a series of superhuman feats. He strangled a lion, traveled to hell and back, killed a multiheaded hydra monster, and accomplished several other highly unpleasant, dangerous, and seemingly impossible tasks that, through brute strength and unwavering persistence, he managed to pull off with seeming ease. But for all the painful trials Heracles had overcome, none was as great as enduring the horrific agony of death. Tricked into donning a beautiful cloak that had been soaked in a powerful poison that burned the flesh off anyone who wore it, Heracles screamed in agony the moment the lethal robe touched his skin. He flung off the robe, but alas, all his flesh came with it, skinning alive the man of superhuman strength. Suffering unbearable pain, the immortal god demanded his son help him die.
"You are asking me to be your murderer," the young man answered, refusing to comply with his father's dying command.
"No," Heracles replied, "I am not. I ask you to be my healer, the only physician who can cure my suffering."
But his son refused to help him. Powerless because the only healer who could help him refused to do so, Heracles was forced to die slowly and in great agony. Unable to withstand the pain any longer, he ordered his funeral pyre built. Once it was done, he threw himself into the flames to end the excruciating torture. To burn alive was preferable to the agony of suffering any longer.
Flash forward to the twentieth century, and a woman of ordinary strength confronts the pain of dying. "I am now about to make the great adventure," actress Clara Blandick wrote in 1962, when she was slowly dying with severe arthritis. "I cannot endure this agonizing pain any longer. It is all over my body. Neither can I face the impending blindness. I pray the Lord my soul to take. Amen." Setting her pen down, the eighty-two-year-old woman, immortalized thirty years earlier as "Auntie Em" in The Wizard of Oz, dressed in a beautiful blue gown with her hair perfectly set, lay down on her couch, and took an overdose of pills that her doctor had prescribed to treat her constant pain. She covered herself with a golden blanket and died, surrounded by her favorite photos and press clippings, commemorating a life well lived, with no regrets. Like Heracles, Clara Blandick didn't want to die, but neither did she want to endure a slow agony from severe arthritis that only death could cure.
Sophocles, writing twenty-five hundred years ago, was among the first to address this human tragedy through drama when he narrated the story of Heracles's death in the Athenian tragedy The Women of Trachis. Sophocles understood the desire of dying patients to end their suffering by ending life. "Best by far," he wrote, "when one has seen the light, is to go thither swiftly whence he came."
Sophocles wasn't the only Greek tragedian who recorded the common sentiment. Aeschylus wrote, "Oh that in speed without pain and the slow bed of sickness death could come to us now." Seneca, the Roman stoic, expanded on the theme. He wrote, "The wise man will consider it of no importance whether he causes his end or merely accepts it.... Dying early or late is of no relevance; dying well or ill is. To die well is to escape the danger of living ill."
As these philosophers and dramatists understood, the desire to end suffering by dying quickly is eternal in the history of mankind. Yet the concept of suffering is inextricably woven into a tapestry of beliefs regarding humanity's relationship to the Divine, lacing together the medical and the religious as new technologies raise new questions concerning the changing cultural roles—and powers—of physicians.
A couple years ago I was talking to a legislator who was sponsoring a bill to ban physician aid in dying. I told him how, as a physician, I was distressed to see so much needless suffering at the end of life. He lurched toward me in his seat and asked, "What's wrong with suffering?" As he put it, the concept of needless suffering seemed not just incongruous but unbelievable. I had trouble even replying. Does anyone like to suffer? How could he think there isn't anything wrong with suffering?
To most people, such a question as the legislator posed might appear cruel, even sadistic. But I knew the argument well enough to recognize where he was going with his line of thought. The legislator was of the mindset that people have a duty to share the burden of Christ's suffering and that through suffering comes redemption. As the Catholic writer Joseph Sullivan said, "Suffering is almost the greatest gift of God's love."
The concept of suffering to attain salvation can be traced to the apostle Paul and St. Augustine, who wrote about Christ's love for those who suffered and the need to accept one's suffering as a trial, just as Job suffered his afflictions in silence knowing his Lord would not forsake him. But it has not been until recent years that the concept of suffering has been embraced by the far right as a justification for a variety of deprivations and social sacrifices. It is little wonder, then, that the concept of suffering as divine has been used to justify refusing aid to the dying in the form of physician-assisted death.
What may be surprising, however, is that this very same argument arose over whether women should have anesthesia for childbirth. In yet another battlefield for the will of God, during the mid-nineteenth century, when chloroform was introduced as an anesthesia during childbirth, many physicians and clergy argued that to interfere with the pain of childbirth would be a violation of God's will. They based their argument on the belief that after the fall of the first parents, Adam and Eve, God cast a primeval curse upon humanity, proclaiming, "in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" (Genesis 3:16). The dispute over whether women should have pain relief in childbirth continued for several years, and effectively ended in 1853 when Queen Victoria took chloroform during the birth of her eighth child.
Lest the reader think the nineteenth-century belief that suffering is divine has no influence on the practice of modern secular medicine, consider the work of President George W. Bush's Council on Bioethics. The council, established on November 28, 2001, by Executive Order 13237, was directed to "advise the president on bioethical issues that may emerge as a consequence of advances in biomedical science and technology." The council's report stated, "Yet human pain, while possibly more frequent and intense than animals', is also privileged in a way that that of animals never can be: our suffering, and ours alone, may perhaps be redeemed."
Moreover, this view is not limited to conservative Christians; Catholicism embraces a similar perspective on the concept of suffering. For example, on July 25, 2011, at a Kansas City conference on end-of-life care, Cardinal Burke, prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, said, "No matter how much a life is diminished, no matter what suffering the person is undergoing, that life demands the greatest respect and care. It's never right to snuff out a life because it's in some way under heavy burden."
And although some Catholic teaching does support stopping treatment that is "extraordinary" or "disproportionate" in prolonging meaningless and burdensome life, under the most orthodox teaching it is never allowable to end life in order to minimize suffering, even when the patient is days or weeks from dying.
Although many people of faith support both medically managed dying and physician aid in dying, the most ardent opponents come from the ranks of those with strong convictions based on religious tenets, predominantly self-described advocates of what is commonly termed a "right to life." In many surveys of demographics, attitudes, and preferences of voters, the element most closely correlated with opposition to physician aid in dying is religiosity, as measured by attendance at religious services and parameters pointing to fundamentalist religious beliefs. Surveys of physicians in several states, and nationally, have found the same, with a consistent core of 25–30 percent of physicians saying that physician aid in dying is unacceptable under any conditions.
Because the suffering of extended, unnatural dying is a new phenomenon, as I will show, society is floundering mightily in dealing with it. We still see—and label—life-ending acts in the old way, which is to say as killing. And yet, in virtually all societies, not all lives are sanctified, with the exception of Buddhist teachings, which hold that all life is sacred, yet nonetheless conclude that assisted death can be justified.
For all the resistance to physician aid in dying, there is an equally strong—indeed, far stronger—social tide toward embracing it. Today, everyone old enough to have watched a loved one die—a family member, friend, or even a casual acquaintance—knows the all-too-common and persistent agonies of dying. And physicians, whose stock in trade is to observe, know only too well the rigors of dying. For many patients, modern medical methods—in particular good comfort care with painkillers and treatments for other symptoms—can provide relatively peaceful ends. In these cases, there is no need for assisted death; it will come gently and in its own time.
But for those modern medicine fails, no amount of comfort care can alleviate the agonies of death. Far worse, while modern medicine may fail to help some people, it may instead extend the agonies of death by artificially extending life. And running the treacherous rapids of the dying process is not something anyone would wish for oneself or for a loved one. Yet it is indeed an issue that humanity has long grappled with, perhaps no better summed up than in six simple words from Shakespeare, famously penned in Hamlet: "To be, or not to be, that is the question."
Of course the existential struggle that the bard referred to spoke more to the sufferings of heartache and calamity than the ravages of dying flesh, yet the question of whether one ought to "take arms against one's troubles" when those troubles be the agonies of death have long bemused audiences through literature and theater, particularly throughout the twentieth century, when modern medicine made it possible to diagnose terminal illnesses at an early stage, prolong the lives of the dying, and discretely and painlessly end suffering with medicine.
Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan
Leaping forward several hundred years, we find the troublesome issue no more resolved than it was in antiquity, much less during Shakespeare's time. The emotionally evocative issue of whether a person should be allowed to die became a powerful social concern in the mid-1970s when the celebrated case of a young woman brought to public light what it means to keep someone alive through life support.
In 1975, Karen Ann Quinlan was a twenty-one-year-old woman who fasted for two days and then went to a party, where she ingested a combination of drugs and alcohol. By the end of the evening she had fallen into an irreversible coma, eventually deteriorating to a persistent vegetative state with no possible hope for recovery. When it was clear their daughter would never regain consciousness, her parents requested the hospital disconnect her life support and allow her to die. The hospital refused, so the Quinlan family—who were devout Roman Catholics—took their plea to the courts, asking that they be allowed to disconnect their daughter from the respirator.
But the Chancery Court denied the Quinlans' request, ruling that the question of whether to stop life support was a medical and not a judicial concern. The court then went one step further and took away any rights the parents had to make medical decisions regarding their daughter's care on the grounds that they were allegedly too traumatized to make reasoned judgments. With that decision, the case quickly turned from a tragic but private family matter to a sensationalized legal and social debate that made daily newspaper headlines and became fodder for nightly talk shows. Never before had the question of what it means to extend life through technology been so openly discussed, and now it was front-page news.
"The case was the first one to draw the attention of the country and the courts to the problem of being a prisoner in a helpless body, supported only by medical technology," John Fletcher, director of the Center for Medical Bioethics at the University of Virginia noted. "Death is not something that just happens to most people. Nowadays it's death by decision," he added. "Every one of those decisions is a direct descendant of the Quinlan decision."
After the Chancery Court ruling, the Quinlans took their case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which reversed the Chancery Court's decision and ruled that Ms. Quinlan be disconnected from all life support. In reaching its decision, the court noted that were she competent to make the decision, Karen Ann Quinlan would have the right to decide for herself whether or not to sustain her life through medical technology, even if doing so led to her death.
Following the State Supreme Court ruling, Ms. Quinlan was disconnected from life support, with the exception of continued feeding. But despite expectations that she would die quickly once disconnected, she lived for another ten years before finally succumbing to pneumonia in a nursing home in 1985.
Meanwhile, another young woman, a once-lively twenty-five-year-old reduced to a vegetative state following a car accident in 1983, lay in a coma. Nancy Cruzan was a young Missouri woman whose parents fought for years, like the Quinlans, for their daughter to be allowed to die. When the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the state's right to preserve life was absolute and her parents could not remove her feeding tube, her family took the case to the US Supreme Court.
Although the court upheld the lower court's ruling in respect to Ms. Cruzan, it made a finding that continues to shape patients' rights in respect to treatment and death. The US Supreme Court ruled that people who have the capacity to reason and make their own decisions do have the constitutional right to refuse treatment. Although that 1990 ruling did not help their daughter, the Cruzans found further evidence shortly after that their daughter had told others that she would not want to be kept alive artificially if she were ever in such a state. After presenting their new evidence to the state, the state of Missouri allowed the Cruzans to disconnect their daughter's feeding tube. After nearly eight years of unconsciousness and without the capacity to think, Nancy Cruzan died peacefully at the age of thirty-three.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from DOCTOR, PLEASE HELP ME DIEby Tom Preston Janice Harper Copyright © 2013 by Tom Preston, MD. Excerpted by permission of iUniverse, Inc.. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
"About the title" may belong to another edition of this title.
Shipping rates from Germany to U.S.A.
| Item | 16 to 45 business days | 16 to 45 business days |
|---|---|---|
| First item | US$ 55.06 | US$ 55.06 |
Payment methods
- Bank Wire Transfer
- Check
- Paypal
Store description
Online Handel nur mit Neubüchern
Seller's business information
Moluna GmbH
Engberdingdamm 27
Greven, Germany 48268
Terms of sale
Instructions for revocation/
Standard Business Terms and customer information/ data protection declaration
Revocation right for consumers
(A ‘consumer’ is any natural person who concludes a legal transaction which, to an overwhelming extent, cannot be attributed to either his commercial or independent professional activities.)
Instructions for revocation
Revocation right
You have the right to revoke this contract within one month without specifying any reasons.
The revocation period is one month with effect from the day,
-
on which you or a third party nominated by you, which is not the carrier, had taken possession of the products, provided you had ordered one or more products within the scope of a standard order and this/these product/products is/are delivered uniformly;
-
on which you or a third party nominated by you, which is not the carrier, had taken possession of the last product, provided you had ordered several products within the scope of a standard order and these products are delivered separately;
-
on which you or a third party nominated by you, which is not the carrier, had taken possession of the last part delivery or the last unit, provided you had ordered a product, which is delivered in several part deliveries or units;
In order to exercise your revocation right, you must inform us (Moluna GmbH, Engberdingdamm 27, 48268 Greven, Telephone number: 02571/5 69 89 33, Fax number: 02571/5 69 89 30, E-Mail address: abe@moluna.de) of your decision to revoke this contract by means of a clear declaration (e.g. a letter sent via post, fax or email). You can use the enclosed specimen revocation form for this, which however is not mandatory.
In order to safeguard the revocation period, it is sufficient that you send the notification about the exercise of the revocation right before the expiry of the revocation period.
Consequences of the revocation
If you revoke this contract, we shall repay all the payments, which we received from you, including the delivery costs (with the exception of additional costs, which arise from that fact that you selected a form of delivery other than the most reasonable standard delivery offered by us), immediately and at the latest within 14 days from the day on which we received the notification about the revocation of this contract from you. We use the same means of payment, which you had originally used during the original transaction, for this repayment unless expressly agreed otherwise with you; you will not be charged any fees owing to this repayment.
We can refuse the repayment until the products are returned to us or until you have furnished evidence that you have sent the products back to us, depending on whichever is earlier.
You must return or transfer the products to us immediately and, in any case, at the latest within 14 days with effect from the day on which you inform us of the revocation of this contract. The deadline is maintained if you send the products before the expiry of the 14 day deadline.
You bear the direct costs for returning the products.
You must pay for any depreciation of the products only if this depreciation can be attributed to any handling with you that was not necessary for checking the condition, features and functionality of the products.
Criteria for exclusion or expiry
The revocation right is not available for contracts
for delivery of products, which are not prefabricated and for whose manufacturing an individual selection or stipulation by the consumer is important or which are clearly tailored to the personal requirements of the consumer;
for delivery of products, which can spoil quickly or whose use-by date would be exceeded quickly;
for delivery of alcoholic drinks, whose price was agreed at the time of concluding the contract, which however can be delivered 30 days after the conclusion of the contract at the earliest and whose current value depends on the fluctuations in the market, on which the entrepreneur has no influence;
for delivery of newspapers, periodicals or magazines with the exception of subscription contracts.
The revocation right expires prematurely in case of contracts
for delivery of sealed products, which are not suitable for return for reasons of health protection or hygiene if their seal has been removed after the delivery;
for delivery of products if they have been mixed inseparably with other goods after the delivery, owing to their condition;
for delivery of sound or video recording or computer software in a sealed package if the seal has been removed after the delivery.
Specimen - revocation form
(If you wish to revoke the contract, please fill up this form and send it back to us.)
-
To Moluna GmbH, Münsterstr. 105, 48268 Greven, Fax number: 02571/5 69 89 30, Email address: abe@moluna.de :
-
I/we () herewith revoke the contract concluded by me/ us () regarding the purchase of the following products ()/
the provision of the following service () -
Ordered on ()/ received on ()
-
Name of the consumer(s)
-
Address of the consumer(s)
-
Signature of the consumer(s) (only in case of a notification on paper)
-
Date
(*) Cross out the incorrect option.
Standard Business Terms and customer information / data protection declaration
I. Standard business terms
§ 1 Basic provisions
(1) The following terms and conditions of business apply for all contracts concluded with us as the supplier (Moluna GmbH) via the websites AbeBooks and/or ZVAB. Unless otherwise agreed, the inclusion of your own terms and conditions is explicitly rejected.
(2) A ‘consumer’ in the sense of the following regulations is every natural person who concludes a legal transaction which, to an overwhelming extent, cannot be attributed to either his commercial or independent professional activities. The term ‘businessman’ refers to every natural person, legal person or legally responsible partnership that concludes a legal transaction in pursuance of his/its independent professional or commercial activity.
§ 2 Conclusion of the contract
(1) The subject-matter of the contract is the selling of products .
(2) If an article is placed by us with AbeBooks or ZVAB, the activation of the page on AbeBooks or ZVAB shall involve the binding offer to conclude a contract under the terms and conditions contained in the article page.
(3) The contract shall become effective via the online shopping cart system as follows:
The products intended for purchase are moved to the "shopping cart". You can select the "Shopping Cart" using the appropriate buttons on the navigation bar and make changes there at any time.
After calling up the “Checkout” page and entering the required personal data and payment and shipping conditions, all order information is then displayed again on the order summary page.
Before submitting the order, you have the ability once more to review or change any information here (you may also use the "back" button on the Internet browser), or to cancel the purchase.
By clicking the “Buy now” button to submit the order, you declare your legally binding acceptance of the order which makes the contract effective.
(4) The execution of the order and the sending of all the details necessitated by the conclusion of the contract take place via e-mail, in a partially-automated manner. Consequently, you have to ensure that the e-mail address that you have deposited with us is the correct one, and that the receipt of the respective e-mails is guaranteed. In particular, you have to ensure that the respective e-mails are not blocked by a SPAM filter.
§ 3 Right of retention, reservation of proprietary rights
(1) You can only exercise a right of retention if the situation in question involves claims arising from the same contractual relationship.
(2) The goods remain our property until the purchase price is paid in full.
(3) If you are a businessman, the following conditions also apply:
a) We retain ownership of the goods until all the claims arising from the ongoing business relationship have been settled in full. The goods subject to retention of title may not be pledged or transferred by way of security before ownership of the said goods changes hands.
b) You can re-sell the goods within the framework of an orderly transaction. In this regard, you hereby cede all the claims amounting to the magnitude of the billing amount that accrue to you as a result of the re-selling operation to us, and we accept the cession. Furthermore, you are authorised to collect the claim in question. However, insofar as you do not discharge your payment obligations in an orderly fashion, we reserve the right to collect the claim ourselves.
c) In a situation involving the combination and amalgamation of the goods subject to retention of title, we acquire co-ownership of the newly-formed item. This co-ownership corresponds to the ratio that exists between the invoice value of the goods subject to retention of title and the other processed items at the time of processing.
d) If you make a request of this nature, we shall be obligated to release the securities that are due to us, to the extent that the realisable value of our securities exceeds the claim to be secured by more than 10%. We are responsible for selecting the securities to be released.
§ 4 Warranty
(1) The statutory warranty rights are applicable.
(2) As a consumer, you are requested to promptly check the product for completeness, visible defects and transport damage as soon as it is delivered, and promptly disclose your complaints to us and the shipping company in writing. Even if you do not comply with this request, it shall have no effect on your legal warranty claims.
(3) If a characteristic of the goods deviates from the objective requirements, the deviation shall only be deemed to be agreed if you were informed of the same by us before submitting the contractual declaration and the deviation was expressly and separately agreed between the contracting parties.
(4)
Insofar as you are an entrepreneur, the following shall apply in deviation from the above warranty provisions:
a) Only our own specifications and the manufacturer's product description shall be deemed agreed as the quality of the goods, but not other advertising, public promotions and statements by the manufacturer.
b) In the event of defects, we shall, at our discretion, provide warranty by rectification of the defect or subsequent delivery. If the rectification of defects fails, you may, at your option, demand a reduction in price or withdraw from the contract. The rectification of defects shall be deemed to have failed after a second unsuccessful attempt, unless the nature of the goods or the defect or other circumstances indicate otherwise. In the event of rectification of defects, we shall not be obliged to bear the increased costs arising from the transport of the goods to a place other than the place of performance, unless such transport is in accordance with the intended use of the goods.
c) The warranty period shall be one year from delivery of the goods. The shortening of the period shall not apply
- for culpable damage attributable to us arising from injury to life, limb or health and for other damage caused intentionally or by gross negligence;
- insofar as we have fraudulently concealed the defect or have assumed a guarantee for the quality of the item;
- in the case of items which have been used for a building in accordance with their customary use and have caused its defectiveness;
- in the case of statutory rights of recourse that you may assert against us in connection with rights arising from defects.
§ 5 Choice of law, place of fulfilment, jurisdiction
(1) German law shall apply. This choice of law only applies to customers if it does not result in the revocation of the protection guaranteed by the mandatory provisions of the law of the country in which the respective customer’s usual place of residence is located (benefit-of-the-doubt principle).
(2) If you are not a consumer, but a businessman, a legal entity under public law or an institutional fund governed by public law, our place of business is the place of jurisdiction as well as the place of fulfilment for all services that follow from the business relationships that exist with us. The same condition applies to situations in which you are not associated with a general place of jurisdiction in Germany or the EU, as well as situations in which the place of residence or the usual place of residence is not known at the time of commencement of proceedings. This has no bearing on the capacity to call upon the court associated with another place of jurisdiction.
(3) The provisions of the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods are explicitly inapplicable.
II. Customer information
- Identity of the seller
Moluna GmbH
Engberdingdamm 27
48268 Greven
Germany
Telephone: 02571/5698933
E-Mail: abe@moluna.de
- Information regarding the conclusion of the contract
The technical steps associated with the conclusion of the contract, the contract conclusion itself and the correction options are executed in accordance to the regulations "conclusion of the contract" in our standard business terms (part I.).
- Contractual language, saving the text of the contract
3.1 Contract language shall be English.
3.2 The complete text of the contract is not saved with us. Before the order is sent, the contract data can be printed out or electronically saved using the browser’s print function. After the order is received by us, the order data, the legally-mandated details related to distance selling contracts and the standard business terms are re-sent to you via e-mail.
- Main features of the product or service
The key features of the goods and/or services can be found in the respective quote.
- Prices and payment arrangements
5.1 The prices mentioned in the respective offers represent total prices, as do the shipping costs. They include all the price components, including all the incidental taxes.
5.2 The dispatch costs that are incurred are not included in the purchase price. They can be viewed by clicking the appropriate button on our website or in the respective quote, are shown separately over the course of the order transaction and must additionally be borne by you, insofar as free delivery is not confirmed.
5.3 The payment methods that are available to you are shown by clicking the appropriate button on our website or are disclosed in the respective quote.
5.4 Unless otherwise specified for the respective payment methods, the payment claims arising from the contract that has been concluded become payable immediately.
- Delivery conditions
6.1 The delivery conditions, delivery date and existing supply restrictions, if applicable, can be found by clicking the appropriate button on our website or in the respective quote.
Unless a different period is specified in the item description or our delivery conditions, the goods are delivered within 3-5 days after the conclusion of the contract (in case an advance payment has been agreed upon, after the payment authorisation).
6.2 If you are a consumer, the following is statutorily regulated: The risk of the sold item accidentally being destroyed or degraded during shipping only passes over to you when the item in question is delivered, regardless of whether or not the shipping operation is insured. This condition does not apply if you have independently commissioned a transport company that has not been specified by us or a person who has otherwise been appointed to execute the shipping operation.
If you are a businessman, the delivery and shipping operations take place at your own risk.
- Statutory warranty right
Liability for defects is governed by the “Warranty” provisions in our General Terms and Conditions of Business (Part I).
last update: 01.01.2022
Data protection declaration
Unless stated otherwise below, the provision of your personal data is neither legally nor contractually obligatory, nor required for conclusion of a contract. You are not obliged to provide your data. Not providing it will have no consequences. This only applies as long as the processing procedures below do not state otherwise.
“Personal data” is any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person.
Responsible person
Contact us at any time. The contact details of the person responsible for data processing can be found in our legal notice.
Collection, processing, and transfer of personal data in orders
When you submit an order we only collect and use your personal data insofar as this is necessary for the fulfilment and handling of your order as well as processing of your queries. The provision of data is necessary for conclusion of a contract. Failure to provide it will prevent the conclusion of any contract. The processing will occur on the basis of Article 6(1) b) GDPR and is required for the fulfilment of a contract with you.
Your data is transferred here for example to the shipping companies and dropshipping providers, payment service providers, service providers for handling the order and IT service providers that you have selected. We will comply strictly with legal requirements in every case. The scope of data transmission is restricted to a minimum.
Duration of storage
After contractual processing has been completed, the data is initially stored for the duration of the warranty period, then in accordance with the retention periods prescribed by law, especially tax and commercial law, and then deleted after the period has elapsed, unless you have agreed to further processing and use.
Rights of the affected person
If the legal requirements are fulfilled, you have the following rights according to art. 15 to 20 GDPR: Right to information, correction, deletion, restriction of processing, data portability. You also have a right of objection against processing based on art. 6 (1) GDPR, and to processing for the purposes of direct marketing, according to art. 21 (1) GDPR.
Right to complain to the regulatory authority
You have the right to complain to the regulatory authority according to art. 77 GDPR if you believe that your data is not being processed legally.
Right to object
If the data processing outlined here is based on our legitimate interests in accordance with Article 6(1)f) GDPR, you have the right for reasons arising from your particular situation to object at any time to the processing of your data with future effect.
If the objection is successful, we will no longer process the personal data, unless we can demonstrate compelling legitimate grounds for the processing that outweigh your interests or rights and freedoms, or the processing is intended for the assertion, exercise or defence of legal claims.
last update: 10.01.2022