Euthanasia, a subject of profound ethical, medical, and social importance, has been the focus of intense debate in Portugal over recent years. This practice, which involves intentionally ending a person's life to relieve suffering, has raised questions about the balance between individual autonomy and safety.

Portugal's traditional stance on euthanasia was heavily influenced by its Catholic heritage, which views life as sacred and opposes any deliberate act to end it prematurely. As a committed Christian, I share the views of the Catholic Church.

Biblical perspective

The Bible does not specifically refer to suicide, although the Catholic Church teaches that it is a sin. The Anglican Church takes a similar stand. The Archbishop of Canterbury has called the idea of assisted dying "dangerous" and suggested it would lead to a “slippery slope” where more people would feel compelled to have their life ended medically.


The legal position in Portugal

The journey towards legalising euthanasia in Portugal has been contentious and marked by multiple legislative attempts, setbacks, and revisions. In 2020 and 2021, Portugal’s Parliament passed bills legalising euthanasia for individuals suffering from intolerable pain or terminal illnesses. However, these bills were met with resistance from President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, who vetoed the legislation. The President cited concerns over imprecise definitions and the need for greater safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals.

Following the veto, the Constitutional Court of Portugal was called upon to assess the legality and constitutionality of the proposed laws. The Court raised concerns about the vague language used in the legislation, particularly terms like "intolerable suffering," and requested clearer guidelines.

However, the constitutional court ruled that acceptance of the right to life is nearly universal, and it is a vital aspect of the judgement that the PCC did not find this right to be an obstacle to the proposed law. Judge João Pedro Caupers explained that: “The right to life does not entail a duty to live under any circumstances [and that] the conditions under which medically assisted death is legally acceptable must be ‘clear, anticipated and controllable’. Therefore, it is the task of the legislator to define such conditions safely for all people involved in the process”. (This is a translation of the PCC decision.)

While the law permits euthanasia, it's also important to note that the specifics and implementation details are still being worked out, with the regulation of the law yet to be fully enacted. Therefore, it's not possible to definitively state how many people have actually undergone euthanasia in Portugal under the new law.

The view of most legal experts is that euthanasia is now permitted in Portugal, but that no doctor would be prepared to administer the necessary drugs.


Euthanasia is impossible to regulate

There are so many issues and challenges, it’s difficult to know where to start. In the UK, Dame Esther Rantzen is a fierce campaigner for Euthanasia. Her own medical problems have led her to want this option for herself, as well as others. Two years ago, she was given six months to live. She is still alive (and campaigning). One of the basic legal proposals is that Euthanasia should be limited to people with six months or less to live. Who can, with absolute knowledge, confirm a life limit of six months? There are many other cases of people diagnosed to have only six months or less to live actually living for much longer.


Changing regulations

The UK is the latest country to pursue this policy, but, as in other countries, politicians keep changing the objectives and watering down the safeguards. UK politicians approved moving forward on the subject of euthanasia. They were presented with the safeguards, most importantly, that a high court judge would be needed to approve a request for voluntary euthanasia. As soon as this went to the committee stage, already this was being changed to a ‘committee’ and not a judge.

In Canada, euthanasia, termed Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), has been legally permitted since 2016 and has undergone some amendments. In 2021, eligibility was expanded to include individuals experiencing intolerable suffering due to non-terminal medical conditions. Further amendments, such as potential inclusion of mental illness as a sole criterion, have been under review but implementation has faced delays to address concerns and ensure proper safeguards.

In other words, what is initially agreed can be subject to change as time goes by. Once over the hurdle of acceptance by the appropriate government, it does not mean the law won’t be amended or changed.


Other critical issues

The issue that concerns me most is the issue of consent. Whatever the safeguards, a person who feels they are a burden to their family can be convinced, or convince themselves, that ending their life would be a relief for their family. With all the will in the world, they may well be able to convince doctors or psychiatrists that this is their will, because in a sense it is, but it’s not grounds for suicide.

Another issue that has been raised is that if a doctor even mentions the option of euthanasia to a patient in severe pain and a limited life expectancy, the patient could interpret this as encouragement to consider this option.

The whole issue of euthanasia is a moral minefield. Not just for the medical profession, but also for governments to legislate in a safe manner. That’s almost impossible. No doctor can with absolute certainty predict someone’s likely death within six months.


Conclusion

Nine European countries recently approved, under different conditions, Euthanasia. Switzerland, however, approved Euthanasia in 1942. Apart from Switzerland, only nationals can use this law in their country. Switzerland will accept patients from other countries. Voluntary euthanasia is the start of a slippery slope that leads to involuntary euthanasia and the killing of people who are thought undesirable. Even worse, Euthanasia may become a cost-effective way to treat the terminally ill. All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status or their potential for achievement.

This ‘door’ should never have been opened, but now it’s slightly open, it will slowly become wide open. It’s just a matter of time.

Author

Resident in Portugal for 50 years, publishing and writing about Portugal since 1977. Privileged to have seen, firsthand, Portugal progress from a dictatorship (1974) into a stable democracy. 

Paul Luckman