I continue with the observations made on the Proposed Organic Law for the Regulation of Euthanasia (PLORE), approved yesterday by the Congress of Deputies.
In her Article 3 defines the key concepts PLORE: Informed consent, severe chronic disability, serious incurable illness, consulting physician, conscientious objection, provision of assistance in dying, situation of de facto incapacity and vital values.
- One of the first difficulties in applying this law stems from its definition of informed consent y severe chronic disability.
Informed consent: "It is conformity." free, voluntary and conscious of a person, manifested in full use of his/her faculties after receiving the appropriate information, so that, at your request, one of the actions described may take place.
Severe chronic disabilityA situation in which the affected person experiences a generalized inability to care for themselves, with no reasonable prospect of recovery, and where there is certainty or a high probability that this incapacity will persist for the rest of the person's life. Limitations are understood to be those that primarily affect... their physical autonomy and activities of daily living, and their ability to express themselves and relate... »
It is not sufficiently clear that a person can act in full use of his/her faculties when it is affected their ability to express themselves and relateLet's consider the clinical case of a patient with Alzheimer's. In advanced stages of the disease, it falls within the definition of severe chronic disability, at the same time that, due to the clinical nature of the disease, it is severely affected in their autonomy, their daily living activities, and their ability to express themselves and relate to others.
Question: If the patient is unable to make free, voluntary, and conscious decisions while in full possession of their faculties, who makes the decision? They cannot. The only possibility is that it be done through a proxy. consent by representationThis is an aspect that the law does not address. I consider this a serious loophole in the law, given that the most vulnerable people, and those most susceptible to abuse, are precisely patients with severe chronic disabilities.
- The law requires being at least 18 years old and be aware at the time of requesting euthanasia. Although the requirement of "being aware" At the time of the lawsuit, which is absolutely applicable to the previous example, I wonder if this is the reason why infant euthanasia is not being addressed. Certain groups within Spanish pediatrics have already demanded it. It is only a matter of waiting for the necessary emotional awareness campaign to develop so that the vast majority will accept it, not just as a lesser evil, but as a genuine act of charity.
And this is where I want to emphasize the point about the slippery slope, Because I am absolutely certain that this law opens the door not only to infant euthanasia, but also to the chronically mentally ill, to pathologies that are not necessarily terminal, and ultimately to situations that are burdensome for a society entrenched in hedonism and an absolutely uncompassionate moral utilitarianism.
