Publicador de contenidos

Back to Opinion_19_03_2021_DCHO_Ley_Eutanasia

Euthanasia Law: A Matter of Life and Death

19/03/2021

Published in

Diario de Navarra

Asuncion de la Iglesia Chamarro :: Asuncion de la Iglesia Chamarro :: Asuncion de la Iglesia Chamarro

Teacher of Constitutional Law

The priority of the ideological diary has been sought, avoiding a serious discussion question that is... of life or death.

Life, death and the meaning of existence are much more than so many topics in the "agenda" of a Parliament. Although we are not yet very aware of it, the decision of 18-M is by far the most relevant in our recent history: much more than the destination of European funds, the extension of the restrictions on rights due to alarm, the authorization of a secession referendum or the decision on monarchy or republic. The 18-M and the approval of the euthanasia law mark a before and after in our journey as a political community.

The decision has a constitutional dimension and goes beyond it. It implies a new reading of "the first right" (the right to life -article 15 CE) and introduces a change in the general rule: if until today life was understood as an absolute that obliged protection and the duty of care until the ultima ratio of the Law was exhausted, as of entrance in force the rule changes: the right to choose one's own death is formulated if the conditions of the so-called euthanasia context are met.

It is well known that the factual assumptions in these fields tend to expand, broadening the circumstances that justify the context and reducing the age of the subjects; also in the internship, once the Rubicon is passed, the issue can become trivialized, death by choice can become undramatized and thus, the guarantees, so vivid in the debates that instituted the new right, remain in the background; likewise, the objecting health staff , so understood in this first phase, can end up being annoying, because it opposes the dispensation of a standardized benefit right.

Today we are opening a door that will be difficult to close: we will have the so-called "dignified death", but we run the risk of making the defense of dignified life more complex for the most dependent cases. The defenders of the new right do not like the talk of the "slippery slope", but it is a certain risk, if not an obvious one. The so-called discouragement effect, which raises the cost of the free exercise of the right, is well known at subject . The discouragement effect to live can be a perverse and unwanted consequence of this law of compassion.

The above points to the background, but it is also criticized the decision of the parliamentary procedure in perspective of time and form: in full pandemic, with a parliamentary polarization and a political crisis unknown in Spanish democracy. It has chosen a parliamentary route of profile low in the requirement of previous reports, looking for the priority of the ideological diary and avoiding a serious discussion in question that is... of life or death.

A new era is now opening up in which, as a preventive and compensatory measure of the new right, it will be necessary to multiply efforts to protect life in all circumstances, with solidarity and commitment, from Education to the provision of means and aid to families, as well as to health and assistance centers.