Since the beginning of the year, the bill has been going back and forth - the parliament approves, the President of the Republic rejects and the bill goes back to the Parliament for reconsideration. Now, the parliament once again will have to reschedule a new debate to amend the criminal code aiming to allow euthanasia in specific situations.
On 29 November, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa published on the website of the Presidency of the Republic the grounds for the second rejection. According to him, there were changes “between the first version of the bill and the current version, which corresponded to a considerable change in the weighting of the values of life and self-determination, in the context of Portuguese society”, the note reads.
That’s possible in Portuguese politics system because when the parliament approves a bill, the President has to agree. Otherwise, he can reject it according to his own views or forward to the Constitutional Court when he thinks that the bill is not in accordance with Portuguese fundamental law - that's what he did last time.
Eight months ago, on 15 March, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa rejected the previous bill on this matter, after the Constitutional Court declared that the parliament would have to change the article nº2 due to "insufficient normative density".
The request to review the constitutionality of the bill had been made in February, in which the president argued that the concepts of "intolerable suffering" and "damage of extreme severity according to scientific consensus" used in the previous bill were "highly indeterminate". Indeed, the Court Constitutional agreed with the second point, which forced parliament to change the bill.
The parliament taking into account the decision of the Constitutional Court changed some of those points and approved a new version on 5 November.
However, according to the president, the last bill that was reapproved by parliament not only changes the points that the Constitutional Court requested, but also takes the opportunity to withdraw the requirement of fatal illness, thus expanding the euthanasia for cases of severe or incurable illnesses. This solution was pointed out by Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa as drastic and radical.
If parliament reapproves the bill that allows euthanasia for patients within this new legal framework, without the requirement of fatality, "it departs from the understanding of countries such as Colombia, Canada and some states of the USA", said Marcelo. On the other hand, it gets closer to the point of view of some of the European countries where euthanasia is already allowed – Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium.
All in all, for a final result, Portugal will have to wait until next year. Legislative elections are scheduled for 30 January, and only after that will parliament be able to reconsider the matter.
Paula Martins is a fully qualified journalist, who finds writing a means of self-expression. She studied Journalism and Communication at University of Coimbra and recently Law in the Algarve. Press card: 8252
Time for him to go! A groundswell of opinion in support of this bill should be enough for him to put aside his religious objections. He can always step down on moral grounds!
By Ian from Lisbon on 01 Dec 2021, 08:05
One man can continually over rule a Team of choosen experts, physicians and advisors?
Is that what they have in Belarus ?
A Dicktator?
Time for the dead wood to drift into mythology?
By Albert from Other on 01 Dec 2021, 08:50
This is how a few do-gooders and politically correct people disregard the atrocious, hopeless and cruel suffering of so many people! Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa should go as his deep beliefs are strongly and negatively affecting wide spread common sense, rationality and sound judgment!
By Tony Fernandes from Other on 01 Dec 2021, 14:57
Thou shalt not kill
By Patricia from Algarve on 02 Dec 2021, 14:26
Patricia. Save that line for the loved one suffering intractable pain. I rather think you would change your tune if you witnessed an agonising death. It’s odd how abortion laws pass, where the life in question has no say in the event, yet when it comes to euthenasia, all of the Christians scurry from out of their bolt holes to wave the ten commandments about. Hypocrisy at its worst.
By Ian from Lisbon on 03 Dec 2021, 08:18
Ian, the Hypocratic oath is
First, Do no Harm, we can relieve pain, and consciousness. Or as brilliant humans we can invent even better ways to do this. Unassisted suicide is another option .
But to involve another human in taking a life is wrong. And to allow other folks to make this decision is equally wrong.
You have no idea what I have experienced.
Go hide in your Godless fear. We Believers have No Fear and have plenty of ethical, life respecting solutions.
By Patricia from Algarve on 05 Dec 2021, 17:46
Patrícia, regardless of your reasons, you are defending an anachronic self-serving and misleading "politico-medical" system that keeps us artificially "alive", on a vegetative state for as long a cost-benefit analyses favours the current extended palliative care and/or euthanasia both highly lucrative schemes in most countries where they exist! They were not really designed to protect you, the patient! You are suffering and not enjoying life any more! The bottom line is to keep people artificially "alive", often under cruel and suffering conditions, induced torpor or coma for as long as the policy dictates. Not many people complain because terminally ill patients do not generally come back to tell what they have experienced or how much they have suffered! The patient most times has no saying about preserving or ending its life or suffering! The system and the money do reign!
In countries where euthanasia is legally allowed, the procedure generally constitutes, with rare exceptions, a lose-lose situation for the patient who should have to legally decide about ending her/his life well in advance when still in possession of all cognitive faculties. That in itself is a major challenge and contradiction because as we go down the spiral of death less capable we are of making conscientious and legal decisions!
The system's first approach is to keep you medically alive for as long as possible! Ah, so much for the Hippocratic Oath! So long as there is money to be made regardless of your well being and, of course with exceptions, the feelings of your family/friends and the resources at their disposal!
By Tony Fernandes from Other on 06 Dec 2021, 22:56
One has to wonder! Had they not already practiced this with covid patients.
Men with the power over what should be done with you is scary enough regardless if you have a illness or not. Human beings are fickle and unstable, slight bit of power they seem to drift into an inflated view of themselves and the "power" they believe they possess. If this is an option for "patients" one has to wonder the stability within their own minds. Sadly, there are no real answers because either way you look at it, it is all wrong.
Humanity what is it capable of everything but chaos is what it chooses.
May God have mercy on us.
By Lynette from Other on 27 Dec 2021, 08:08