null / Credit: Patrick Thomas/Shutterstock

ACI Prensa Staff, Jul 31, 2025 / 16:05 pm (CNA).

Uruguay’s  Chamber of Deputies (lower house) is scheduled to vote on a euthanasia bill, titled as “death with dignity,” on Aug. 5. Just days before legislators cast their votes, Catholic Church leaders and professionals from various fields are weighing in against the measure. 

An article published by the Archdiocese of Montevideo titled “Euthanasia: A ‘Right’ That Violates Other Rights” compiles testimonies, beginning with Dutch bioethics expert and professor Theo Boer, who was one of the advocates and activists for the legalization of euthanasia two decades ago. After reviewing thousands of cases, he warned of the sustained growth in requests and, fundamentally, the reasons for each case.

Recognizing his mistake, Boer has traveled the world — and visited Uruguay — to warn about the risks of enabling “assisted suicide,” pointing out that “what began as an exception has become a common practice,” violating the rights of the most disadvantaged.

The Catholic Church in Montevideo stated that the euthanasia law is “an initiative that appears to offer more rights to citizens but ultimately does not provide the guarantees it promises.”

Dr. Agustina da Silveira, who belongs to Prudencia Uruguay, a citizen initiative that opposes euthanasia, warns that according to the draft law, the report by which a lethal injection is requested due to “a chronic, incurable disease or an irreversible health condition that causes suffering considered unbearable” is submitted by the same doctor who will carry out the euthanasia. This means that the person making the decision will also validate his or her own actions, thus becoming both “judge and jury,” so that “if there was an error, it will be irreparable.”

The Archdiocese of Montevideo also points to the Uruguayan Constitution, which in Chapter 1, Article 7 “establishes the importance of the fundamental right to life, a condition that is also recognized and protected through various constitutional provisions and within the framework of various international agreements.”

Another shortcoming noted is that a palliative care law has been in place in Uruguay since August 2023, but its application only reaches 74% of people. Therefore, “legalizing euthanasia without guaranteeing access to palliative care will also be an additional problem,” the archdiocese noted.

If the palliative care law were fully implemented, Da Silveira observed, patients would not reach the stage of “unbearable” suffering proposed by the bill, because “if palliative care is guaranteed, there is no reason for a patient to suffer unbearably,” she explained.

By opening the door to euthanasia, the state ceases to protect life at the moment it becomes most fragile, which violates the law governing the Uruguayan Medical Association.

“It is the duty of physicians, as health professionals, to adhere to the following fundamental principles and values: to respect the life, dignity, autonomy, and freedom of every human being and to seek, as an end, to benefit their physical, mental, and social health,” states Article 3 of the code on medical ethics of the referenced association.

Euthanasia “is presented as an individual right, but it ends up creating a category of people whose right to life is relativized,” said Miguel Pastorino, who holds a doctorate in philosophy and is also a member of Prudencia Uruguay.

“Even if they are not forced to die, they are socially placed in that position: that of lives that are worth less,” he warned.

“Today we have medical tools that allow patients to go through the end of their lives without pain. No one should die suffering,” Da Silveira said, listing three key aspects: the right to refuse treatment, advance directives, and palliative sedation (which allows pain relief without hastening death).

“We are about to legalize euthanasia without having guaranteed relief [from pain]. Not everyone has access to palliative care, and for many, it is impossible to choose to live when they are suffering. It is a great injustice,” the doctor pointed out.

Regarding this point, Pastorino noted: “Palliative care is not an alternative to euthanasia but rather a right that must be guaranteed with or without euthanasia. However, the bill does not require the patient to undergo palliative care first.”

If pain is not adequately managed, “how can we ensure that the decision to die is free? Many people ask to die because they don’t want to be a burden, because they feel abandoned. Is that freedom or is it desperation?” he asked.

“The question is not whether that desire [to end one’s life] exists, but whether society’s response to that desire should be to institutionalize death as a health service,” Pastorino explained.

The perspective of faith

In addition to the legal and medical foundations, the perspective of faith also emerges in the debate, as it “raises a question of meaning: What do we do as a society with human suffering? Do we respond by hastening death or do we accompany others in a dignified manner and avoid pain?”

Last week, in an appearance on his radio program, “The Joy of the Gospel,” Cardinal Daniel Sturla, archbishop of Montevideo, stated: “What we categorically reject is to intentionally cause the death of a person. Life is a gift from God, of which we are stewards, not masters.”

The cardinal also highlighted the many humane reasons for opposing the legislation. Among them is the risk of transforming medicine into a practice that facilitates death rather than helping those who suffer.

The Catholic Church in Uruguay rejects all “therapeutic cruelty” toward patients, while “promoting palliative care and sedation as a way to relieve pain, even in cases where treatment could hasten death as an undesired effect.”

“This is an essential difference, because in palliative sedation the intention is to alleviate suffering. In euthanasia, on the other hand, the objective is directly to cause death,” the cardinal explained, expressing his position against the “throwaway mentality,” which tends to “classify certain lives as disposable.”

“That is opening a floodgate to evil,” he warned.

Uruguayan society is on the verge of legislating on the right to live or not to live. “What is urgent,” many say, “is not to legislate death but to guarantee a dignified life until the end. A life cared for, accompanied, without pain or loneliness,” the Archdiocese of Montevideo stated.

This story was first published by ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner. It has been translated and adapted by CNA