Spanish society is a mature democracy, prepared to face the euthanasia debate and incorporate the right to a good death, a dignified death, into the rights of citizenship. For this there is a social will, the legal regulation of euthanasia is supported by seven out of ten people, according to the CIS, in our country. It is also political, at the level of the parties with representation in the Congress of Deputies, where only the right-wing oppose its regulation, despite the fact that there is significant social support in favor of regulation among its electorate.
But despite the maturity of our society and democracy and the majority support from the citizenry, the main difficulty in maintaining a calm and rigorous debate on euthanasia is the confusion of concepts . Confusion due to ignorance, self-interest or even bad faith that does not help to maintain a frank dialogue.
A new right of citizenship
To contribute to the construction of this open debate, without prejudice and with good will, it is good to start at the beginning. Euthanasia means good death. A calm, quick death, without suffering, without pain, which is chosen in a situation of irreversible suffering exclusively for oneself, freely, consciously and repeatedly. A new subjective right of citizenship. However, it is sometimes raised in the debate under the parameters of a homicide or an extermination, even using examples or similarities with Nazi ideology. Something offensive and completely uncertain, since euthanasia can never be a violent death beyond one’s will, nor can it be imposed on the person.
In the same way, the different adjectives to the term such as direct, indirect, active, passive, voluntary, involuntary are inadmissible in the debate. They are fallacious since any conduct that does not occur freely and autonomously at the request of the person cannot be called euthanasia. Furthermore, the refusal of a treatment or the limitation of the therapeutic effort must be excluded from the concept, even though it may lead to death. And there is no comparison with suicide, they are different behaviors and situations whose approach has a different ethical foundation.
Euthanasia and palliative care: we talk about different things
Furthermore, it is false to raise the debate by confronting the euthanasia law versus the palliative care law. The euthanasia law seeks to regulate the subjective individual right of people who, without facing imminent death, suffer unbearable suffering due to a serious, chronic or highly disabling disease , for which they decide to request and receive help to die early. In this case, it is possible to regulate conscientious objection for health personnel. While the palliative care law regulates the rights and guarantees of all people in a situation of imminent death through health and social assistance at the end of their lives, respecting their autonomy and their willingness to die in dignified conditions. In this case conscientious objection is not allowed.
They are two different situations that require different actions, because palliative care is essential, but sometimes it is not the answer. Both laws are necessary and complementary so that in our country we advance in the good death. A dignified death that is much more than a death without suffering, without pain, calm, serenity and peace. If not, it is also part of a civic ethic based on human rights and the constitutional values of personal autonomy, dignity and freedom of people; that makes a closed defense of life without imposing the obligation to live in poor conditions, when in the opinion of the person who suffers in a serious, irreversible and inevitable way, this erodes their physical or moral integrity and their dignity.
In the coming months the debate will be intense … Hopefully in these lines I have been able to point out some key so that each of us can develop our own and rigorous discourse.
Carmen Montón, former minister of health, consumption and social welfare
