- Jaime Mayor Oreja, president of the One of Us Federation, claims that: “the introduction of the law on euthanasia distances ourselves from our most important objective, which is to give a real response to many people who suffer due to the fact that there is not enough palliative care.”
- The One of Us Federation considers that the only aceptable ethical response facing the end of the life is palliative care, which neither deliberately accelerates death nor unnecessarily prolongs the agony. On the contrary, it allows to take care of patients, relieving their pain until death.
- Vicente Bellver, Professor in Philosophy of Law in the University of Valencia, highlights that: “the project is irresponsible in essence. If we consider that autonomy must take precedence, it makes no sense to restrict the application of euthanasia to certain medical situations.”
Madrid, May 10th 2018. In light of the recent approval by the Congress of Deputies of openning the debate about euthanasia, the One of Us Federation rejects the choice of even talking about a possible law that regulates this issue. The main reason behind it is that this practice directly makes an attempt on the life of any person, who is in the right of receiving palliative care in order to relieve their suffering, instead of been eliminated from life. Jaime Mayor Oreja, president of the One of Us Federation, has pointed out that: “the introduction of the law on euthanasia distance ourselves from our most important objective, which is to give a real response to many people who suffer due to the fact that there is not enough palliative care. Our experience shows us that the introduction of a law on euthanasia is always the best way of destroying people who suffer from a disability, substantially altering the alleged humanitarian reasons of the law.”
For its part, Jacinto Bátiz, director of the Instituto de Sensibilización, Formación, Investigación e Innovación (Awareness, Research, Training, and Innovation Institute) to take better care of the San Juan de Dios de Santurce Hospital (Biscay, Spain) states the following: “I believe that legislating about euthanasia before having legislated about an appropriate care at the end of life with palliative care in order to eliminate the suffering of patients may be a political irresponisibility.”
In addition, the Professor in Philosophy of Law in the University of Valencia, Vicente Bellver, emphasises the inconsistency of the project: “If the project aims to prioritise the autonomy of people, why is the application of euthanasia restricted to certain medical situations?
Similarly, the contradiction of the project is clear if we understand that the objective of euthanasia is not prolonging the suffering: “If this is the case, why would it be necessary to prevent people who are not qualified to give their consent from euthanasia?”
The One of Use Federation believes that the line of action that should be followed by our leaders is to contribute to the complete development of palliative care and the programmes for chronic patients that ensure a dignified life.”
Israel Duro / Cristina Arrendondo
Tel: +34 653 06 13 98 / +34 619 823 100