Today the Organic Law on Euthanasia comes into force. Some observations

Nor I will enter into the bioethical debate about the goodness or badness of the euthanasia law and its approval by a large majority in the Congress of Deputies. Nor will I refer to the "slippery slope" and its macabre confirmation in the countries that have legalized it Assisted suicide and euthanasiaThese are aspects that anyone can access and, therefore, form their own opinion about.

What I do wish to express is the injustice committed by Parliament in approving the Organic Law Regulating Euthanasia (and assisted suicide), and which begins its journey today, under the umbrella of the fetish words of freedom, autonomy and "death with dignity"Expressions like these are heard "It is gained in freedom", "The patient's wishes are respected", "We are aligning ourselves with the most advanced countries in our region.", "The State does not compel"…while one has in mind The image of a dying patient in agony, surrounded by merciless and indifferent doctors, nurses, and priests determined to keep him alive as if it were a sadistic witches' sabbath.

What is not said:

• In its necessary role as a guarantor, the law implements a series of filters that will be ignored in the same proportion as Death becomes routine and the sick person becomes a healthcare or economic burden.This is simply what happens in countries that have legalized it previously. The courts are amply demonstrating this.

• That advance directivesIt will be a document that the subject can never reverse, whether due to incapacity because of their state of unconsciousness, That is, because he has been diagnosed with dementia (cognitive disability)The latter is denied the possibility of having moments of lucidity during which they could change their decision. An example of this is the case of the Dutch doctor Catharina A., acquitted by the courts, who decided to end the life of an elderly woman with dementia, even though she had previously refused to do so at the time of carrying out her decision. The decision made before the illness prevailed over her desire to change her mind at the moment of administering euthanasia.

• With the euthanasia and assisted suicide law The same thing will happen as with the abortion lawFirst, a broad social debate began regarding its morality/immorality. The idea that its existence... certain assumptions and the ethical principle of the lesser evilThey could justify it in situations of rape, fetal malformation, or life-threatening risk to the mother… and provided it occurred within a timeframe in which the fetus had not yet reached sufficient development to be considered a person. From there, it went to abortion by time limits. That is to say The assumption was changed to purely contraceptive action.The fetus is stripped of all human value and all rights, and only priority is given to... the comfort/convenience and autonomy of the pregnant womanToday we know that Abortion is freely permitted even at the time of childbirthWe are entering through the main entrance to infanticide Greco-Roman (where the life or death of the newborn depended on the approval of the pater familias, now it depends on the pregnant woman).

• The law respects conscientious objectionHow long will this respect last? Sooner rather than later we will witness the stigmatization of those professionals who raise ethical objections to their participation in assisted suicide. They will be labeled as thugs, fascists, insensitive and lacking in compassion… they will be presented to us as monsters versus heroes and heroines that they collaborate. In fact, it has already been discussed in the media about "The ordeal suffered by Dr. Luis Montes"He sedated patients he considered terminally ill until they died without notifying their families. He used to say that "People die very badly in this country," And he was right, although he always forgot to mention that there are many ways to die well and with dignity, but always with one entry point: the offer of funeral services. quality palliative care.

• And I'll end where I should have begun. You can't celebrate a law that ignores the existence of a fully developed law on palliative careSpain ranks 31st out of the 51 most advanced countries in this area. We are at the same level as Georgia and Moldova.Ethically, it cannot be argued that we occupy the sixth position of the countries that legalize euthanasia without first taking care to develop the alternative of palliative care. We have chosen not the best path, but the least costly one and the one that leaves the open door to eugenics and the easy and cheap elimination of the "non-profitable" population in a capitalist and uncompassionate society. It is not a law that dignifies death, but a law that is a "relief" for social waste because, if it were really a law that tries to dignify the death of many patients who are living through a situation that is humanly unbearable for them, the freedom to choose between palliative care or euthanasia or assisted suicide should have been legislated beforehand.

• It is not a matter of freedom and/or autonomy, but of justice.