The changes are minor – but substantive. Parliament will today discuss and vote on yet another new version of the medically assisted death law, with significant changes from the plea passed by the Constitutional Court (TC) on January 30. It is another step in a legislative process that began in 2017 (see chronology) and has since included a parliamentary lead on the law, then four final approvals, three vetoes by the President of the Republic (one political and two constitutional) and two more fit on CT.
The new law cuts to the root of the wording that led the TC to say in the final judgment that it was before “an unacceptable lack of definition of the exact scope of the new law”.
This “unacceptable lack of definition” happened, according to the judges, because in the typology of the suffering required to qualify for assisted death, the diploma said it had to be “physical, psychological and spiritual”. Now, “thus doing,” the legislator had “expressed a doubt” that should “clarify”: “Whether the requirement is cumulative (physical suffering, plus psychological suffering, plus spiritual suffering) or alternative (both physical, psychological and spiritual suffering)”.
The TC’s communiqué explaining the verdict read: “The segment being analyzed (“physical, psychological and spiritual suffering”) agrees with the legitimate extraction of possible and plausible interpretive alternatives leading to conflicting practical results: i) reserving access to medical assistance in the event of death only for people who, as a result of a final injury of extreme seriousness or a serious and incurable illness, report suffering of great intensity corresponding cumulatively to the types of physical, mental and spiritual suffering; or ii) guarantee access to medically assisted death assistance to all people suffering intensely from any of the above clinical situations, regardless of the type of suffering cancer with a very limited life expectancy, or a patient suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who does not experience physical suffering ( commonly understood as pain) may or may not have access to non-criminal medically assisted death.”
The parties with bills (PS, PAN, BE, IL) came to an agreement: the segment that characterizes suffering as “physical, mental and spiritual” would be eliminated cleanly and simply. Since this is a necessary condition to access a death assistance to suffer from “very intense suffering”, it is defined as follows: “Suffering as a result of a serious and incurable illness or permanent injury of extreme severity, of great intensity, persistent, persistent or permanent and considered unbearable by the person.”
The other very significant change – which does not follow from the essence of the final judgment of the TC – is the one that substantially limits the possibility of euthanasia.
Explain better: we are dealing with a law that regulates medically assisted death. This can be done in two ways: through euthanasia (when the doctor administers a deadly drug to the patient); or by medically assisted suicide (when the patient is legally self-administering the drug, under medical supervision).
The new article says that euthanasia will only be possible “when medical assisted suicide is impossible because of the patient’s physical incapacity” (for example, a person with quadriplegia who is completely immobile). In other words, assisted death will by default always be performed with the patient self-administering the lethal drug; this is the only way it will not happen when the patient’s lack of autonomy is total.
In any case, the majority (PS+IL+BE+PAN) continues to meet to approve the new pleas (despite Chega wanting the postponement). Then it continues to Bethlehem. And here Marcelo again has the usual options: promulgate or veto it politically (back to the AR) or send it back to the Constitutional Court.
Chronology
February 21, 2017. The 1st project (PAN) has been introduced. Others would follow. All failed on May 29, 2018.
October 25, 2019. The process resumes in the Assembly of the Republic (AR). Final text approved on January 29, 2021. President of the Republic (PR) sends it to the Constitutional Court (TC) in March, which fails.
November 12, 2019. Process in AR is restarted. Final text approved on January 29, 2021. PR appeals again to the TC, which again fails.
November 29, 2021. New PR veto (political this time), after another approval by the AR.
December 9, 2022. New approval in AR. Subsequently, Marcelo appeals again to the TC, which fails again (January 30 this year). AR now has a new final text, which will be voted on tomorrow.
Source: DN
