Euthanasia in Uruguay: a civil conquest

By Valentina Strcovich*/Latinoamérica21

Following the typology of “welfare state”, Uruguay is a country of exception. While many of these policies were consolidated during the progressive era, they are not exclusive to it. In fact, since the beginning of the 20th century, where the prevailing political model responded to the Batllista current, the State was characterized by a liberal and humanist tradition. In the modern era, Uruguay has sought to remain at the forefront in terms of social justice: the regulation and control of cannabis, the decriminalization of abortion, the promulgation of equal marriage, are just a few examples of the many achievements of a true liberal democracy. And now, after the legalization of euthanasia, it adds a new achievement in terms of rights, providing citizens with guarantees even in the most critical moments of their lives.

Parliament is, indeed, the house of democracy. That magnanimous venue houses the most relevant political discussions in the country. Thus, on October 15, after a long session of the Senate, one of the most discussed and progressive laws in the world was approved: the “death with dignity,” which legalizes euthanasia in cases of incurable illness and extreme suffering. With this decision, the South American nation becomes the eleventh country in the world, the seventh at the parliamentary level to regulate it. Unlike the cases of Colombia and Ecuador, where euthanasia is decriminalized through judicial rulings, Uruguay sets a precedent in Latin America by enshrining it through a clear, formal and guaranteeing norm.

Inspired by models such as those of Belgium and the Netherlands, the new law offers all the necessary guarantees for the correct application of active euthanasia. It will have an honorary commission in charge of evaluating cases annually, the support of a Medical Board and even revocation mechanisms, both for the patient who desists from the procedure, and for the professionals who refuse to carry it out. As defended by legislators such as the ruling party Daniel Borbonet, a neonatologist by profession, the law does not impose any obligation, but rather creates alternatives where none existed before.

The promulgation of this law is the culmination of more than five years of intense deliberations, as well as political, ethical and even moral questions. Among some of the most resounding criticisms are religious justifications that, in a secular nation since 1917, should not have much echo in public debate. However, there are still those who, using excuses derived from bioethics, deny the project, claiming that it is detrimental to human life itself. In contrast, its defenders highlight the “guarantee” nature of the regulation, which grants each individual the autonomy to decide about their body in circumstances in which mere existence is tiresome for them.

Party discipline? No, freedom and coexistence

The debate survived two periods of government, a change of political sign, parliamentary reorganizations, but it never lost the tone of respect and agreement. In a country accustomed to processing its differences with institutional serenity, euthanasia required a lot of patience, but never caused any stridency.

In 31 possible votes, 20 were favorable. In addition to the majority of 17 votes from the left-wing coalition, Frente Amplio, which holds the Presidency of the Republic, the remaining 3 belong to opposition parties, 2 from the Colorado Party and 1, surprisingly, from the National Party. No political faction voted out of party discipline, but rather in a personal capacity. This freedom of action allowed figures such as Senator Graciela Bianchi, of the National Party, to distance themselves from their coreligionists and support the project.

Ope Pasquet, considered “the father” of said legislation, defended it, arguing that “there is no dignity without freedom.” This emblematic legislator, recently retired, returned to the parliamentary game to give his last and decisive contribution. But the law is not only the work of benevolent legislators, it is also the triumph of an organized and informed civil society. Sovereignty lies in the nation, and any progressive public policy requires mobilization. Without the work of groups like Empathy Uruguay, as well as the strong testimonies of patients and families who went through painful processes, the project would possibly be lost in a desk drawer.

Dignified death? Yes, a free, serene and, above all, dignified death

As a corollary, it is true that the debate regarding the law is far from settled. As happens with many quasi-disruptive projects, little by little the most detracting voices will continue to strengthen. To some, the title “death with dignity” seems almost disastrous. According to them, what distinguishes a worthy death from an unworthy one? The answer probably lies in the same principle that gives meaning to life: freedom and, above all, the freedom to decide.

With this legislation, Uruguay does not celebrate death, much less encourages it. Here, people in certain circumstances are offered the guarantee that they will be able to choose about their own life. Dying with dignity does not depend only on medical circumstances, nor on religious or cultural backgrounds, but on ensuring the autonomy of the decision. It is about enshrining a principle inherent to the freedom of the individual.

Paradoxically, the day after the promulgation, the President of the Republic, Yamandú Orsi, was in the Vatican waiting to be received by the Supreme Pontiff, Leo XIV. When asked about the law, he pointed out that euthanasia is an issue that brings philosophical issues into dialogue with religious ones, but not with partisan identities. Although his answer was not convincing to many, at the time, it was the most elegant possible. In the end, the euthanasia law is now a reality for Uruguay, also offering a roadmap for the region: dignity is not legislated through dogma, but with dialogue and, above all, freedom.

*Valentina Starcovich is an internationalist graduated from the University of the Republic, Uruguay. Postgraduate in International Trade from the University of Montevideo and candidate for a master’s degree in Political Science, Universidad Torcuato di Tella, Argentina.