Towards a concept of euthanasia

Euthanasia

It is an issue that excites, mobilizes and challenges. Respectful reflection is essential.

Although it may seem strange, right in the middle of a pandemic in which we are trying to save lives, several countries in the region are beginning to discuss bills to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide . It is currently legal in the Netherlands and in Belgium since 2002, in Luxembourg since 2009, in Canada in 2016. And after recent approvals in New Zealand (2020) and Spain (2021), different projects appear in Chile, Uruguay and Peru. Argentina also timidly begins to talk about the subject. In Colombia it has been decriminalized since 1997. There is no law that regulates it, but in 2014 the Constitutional Court ordered the Ministry of Health to issue a guideline to form committees whose function is to guarantee "the right to a dignified death of patients in the terminal phase who solicit".

Towards a concept of euthanasia

Euthanasia is still illegal in most countries of the world , because it is a way of killing a patient and it is contrary to medical ethics. In fact, in 2019 the World Medical Assembly once again spoke out against euthanasia and expressed concern about the countries that decriminalize it.

The debate is not easy, because, even if it is simplified in the media and social networks, bioethical issues regarding the end of life are complex. There are many myths and prejudices on the subject that must be banished in order to be able to debate responsibly on the matter. It is not a question of defending life, nor of defending individual freedom to choose how to die. It is not so simple. The paradoxical thing about these projects to support euthanasia is that they emerge with vehemence and a desire for quick approval in the midst of the pandemic. In the current context, the people for whom we care about saving their lives and prioritizing their vaccination are, at the same time, the ones possibly most affected by these bills. They hasten death instead of offering good care and relief from suffering.

Political responsibility in the face of such a serious matter, literally life or death , requires paying attention to the misinformation that exists , also due to the information saturation in which we move.

widespread myths and confusion

It is not true that those who are in favor of euthanasia want to kill people . Nor is it true that those who are against it want to prolong the suffering of the sick. It is less certain that the opposite position is for religious reasons. Because, in fact, within religions there are diversity of positions and among atheists and agnostics as well. Polarized cartoons do not account for reality. But not everyone understands what they are talking about when they use the term euthanasia either .

I am convinced that the healthiest thing for a debate that strengthens democracy is that we do not live on assumptions, prejudices and simplifications. Rather, that we can, in the midst of the differences and ethical pluralism of our complex societies. Clarify our ideas and facts better, so that we can then take the position that each one is most convinced of, thinking of the common good.

[ Read also: The era of responsibility ]

The seriousness of the matter is that the majority of the population repeats errors and widespread confusion. And, starting from false premises, he arrives with good intentions to wrong conclusions. Once some of these assumptions have been clarified, a deeper debate will be possible on issues that are not reduced to slogans about the value of life or about the freedom to choose.

Euthanasia: a sea of ​​confusion

Euthanasia is not disconnecting someone who is brain dead, because they are already clinically dead. It is not that someone decides not to extend her life with futile treatments or connected to a ventilator. There are advance directive laws to decide to die from the disease, without artificially prolonging life, but not advancing it either. Advance directives are not forms of euthanasia . Rather, in your freedom, you can choose not to prolong your life artificially and not receive treatments that would only extend your suffering.. Everyone has the right to die without pain, with care and therapeutic support, but that is not euthanasia. Euthanasia is giving a lethal substance that kills the patient in a matter of a few minutes, advancing his death. And the criterion that is used in countries where it is legal, once it is accepted that a doctor can kill a patient, the reasons are expanding. In fact, in some countries people with disabilities can already request euthanasia because they consider that their life is "not dignified". At present it has no relation to the classical use of the term " good death" , but refers to killing the patient in a medical context.

Neither is final sedation a form of euthanasia, because palliative sedation does not kill the patient. The myth of the cocktail is something already banished decades ago by palliative medicine. But it continues to be a deeply rooted belief in the population, including health personnel and legislators. In the case of Uruguay, euthanasia is not practiced as is often said, but is confused with practices that are legal and deontologically correct in medicine, such as sedation.

Nor is it true that there is a false opposition between euthanasia and palliative care. Actually, there is a radical opposition from medical ethics: caring for the patient and relieving him are opposed to causing his death. Caring and ending life do not complement each other.

...