本文主要討論死亡協助的有關刑法問題。論文從瑞士的死亡協助機構DIGNITAS談起。依照我國刑法的加工自殺罪，DIGNITAS所從事的死亡協助，可能成立的是幫助自殺罪或受囑託殺人罪？本文認為，應該成立幫助自殺罪。死亡協助的行為方式相當多樣，本文進一步舉出幾個行為類型，認為這類行為既不成立受囑託殺人罪，也不成立幫助自殺罪。判斷的關鍵是，病患自己的決定權。原則上，死亡協助只要不違反病患的自我決定權，刑法就不應加以干涉。通常的幫助自殺，是個人的幫助行為。DIGNITAS則是組織性的幫助自殺，而且帶有營利性。德國刑法不處罰幫助自殺，但對於組織性的幫助自殺，德國的聯邦司法部提出刑法修正案，要加以處罰。本文認為，人口老化已經成為文明社會的普遍現象，刑法必須有所因應。生命到了盡頭而需要尋求死亡協助，刑法不應該全面的干涉。如果允許個人的幫助自殺，就不應該禁止組織性的幫助自殺，帶有營利性的幫助自殺也應該受到容許。至於受囑託殺人，基本上不應容許。

This study is focused on the criminal issues of death assistance. The research starts with a Swiss organization of death assistance-DIGNITAS. In accordance with the offense of processed suicide listed in our criminal law, should the death assistance conducted by DIGNITAS be counted as assisted suicide or entrusted murder? We think it should be counted as assisted suicide. Death assistance comes in a lot of behavioral modes. This study will enumerate several types to elucidate why an act as such should be neither counted as entrusted murder nor as assisted suicide. The key point hinges on the autonomy of the patient himself/herself. In principle, so long as death assistance does not violate the autonomy of the patient, the criminal law should not interfere. Compared with the personal aids seen in common assisted suicide, DIGNITAS provides organizational assistance with a profit-seeking purpose. The German criminal law does not punish assisted suicide but the Federal Department of Justice proposed an amendment to impose penalty. We argue that since aging population has become a common phenomenon of modern society, the criminal law should respond accordingly. When life is coming to an end and needs to look for death assistance, the criminal law should not interfere completely. If personal assisted suicide is allowed, then organizational assisted suicide should not be prohibited even if it is of commercial nature. As to entrusted murder, essentially it should not be allowed.