Citizens will reconsider support for the PSOE law on euthanasia | Society
Citizens has announced this morning that they will rethink support for the law regulating euthanasia that the PSOE has presented in Congress. It has been announced by Rivera's party spokesman in the Health Commission in Congress, Francisco Igea. With this, the agreement between the two parties for the socialists to support the law of death worthy of Citizens (A proposal to ensure the right to receive palliative care until the end of life in all communities). In return, those of Rivera would unblock the bill of euthanasia that the Socialists presented in May of this year.
The cause of the break has been that the PSOE has taken forward, with the opposition of the PP and Citizens, an amendment to the law of dignified death that leaves it up to the autonomous communities to establish the sanctioning regime. After the session, Igea has defended that his proposal sought to guarantee equal attention for all citizens, living where they lived, that they would not have to choose between "horror and suicide". But "to ensure that equality requires a common sanctioning regime," said Igea, who has compared the proposal of the PSOE to the communities had different regulation of what is a robbery or robbery with violence, with different penalties.
The proposal must now be debated in the plenary session of the Congress, where Igea has already announced that it will keep its proposal. There, the majority that supports the current PSOE government - with a significant weight of Catalan and Basque nationalists, very aware of the issues of competence - could knock back the idea of a common system of sanctions.
The rule, in addition to the issue of sanctions, establishes the right of all citizens to receive the best care at the time of death. It clarifies the right to be informed in order to make the decisions that it deems necessary through a document of last wills, the possibility of requesting the withdrawal of life support measures and that there be domiciliary palliative care in all the communities. At the same time, it regulates terminal sedation, which is the possibility that a patient receives a treatment as effective as possible to eliminate or reduce symptoms such as pain, dyspnea or anguish at the end of life, even at the expense of these drugs go on with death, provided that it is applied in the last moments of an irreversible process, that it causes great suffering and lethal in the short term.
Rivera's party proposal aims to put an end to current inequality, in which 10 communities already have death laws say or palliative care. And it is precisely this fact that explains the socialist position, according to Jesús María Fernández Díaz, spokesperson of the PSOE in the Health Commission. "There are regulations such as the Circulation and Penal Code, which are state-owned, but in other areas, such as consumption, communities have the competencies.Of the 10 communities with palliative laws, eight make a specific specific development of sanctions, and two, Madrid and the Basque Country, refer to their own sanitary laws regimes, "says the Socialist spokesman. "With a state regulation we would create confusion," he says, having to live with both regulations.
The PSOE is playing with the law of euthanasia the possibility of moving forward a rule of significant social importance and progressive character, with a symbolism comparable to the laws against gender violence and equal marriage of the first executive Zapatero. In the lower house it has a sufficient majority to take it forward (the same one that supported the investiture of Pedro Sánchez), but it faces the problem of the Mesa del Congreso, controlled by the PP and Citizens, They have it blocked. In the agreement of mutual support for the respective laws of dignified death it was established that the representatives of Rivera's party would allow the initiative to be processed by not extending the amendment period. "But they have not done anything," complains Fernández Díaz, who believes that Igea's statements are "blackmail." "I would have to explain why he voted in favor of taking our law into consideration and then blocking it."
