The bill has to be signed
into law by Mayor Ebrard
Posted on 12/06/2007 6:46:23 AM PST by yankeedame
Last Updated: Wednesday, 5 December 2007, 12:39 GMT
The bill has to be signed
into law by Mayor Ebrard
Mexico City lawmakers have approved a measure to allow terminally ill patients to refuse treatment. The local assembly voted unanimously in favour of the bill enabling patients living in the city to suspend treatment if it only prolongs life.
Family members of terminally ill people who are paralysed but can express themselves can also sign the order if two witnesses are present.
The bill still has to be signed into law by Mayor Marcelo Ebrard.
It could still be the subject of a legal challenge in this conservative Catholic country.
However, Hugo Valdemar, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of Mexico, told El Universal newspaper that the Catholic Church had no issues with the measure, which only applies to Mexico City.
But Mr Valdemar added that the Church was concerned that the bill could be a first step towards legalising euthanasia, which he said would be unacceptable.
Liberal laws
The measure allows "death without unnecessary suffering when death is inevitable" said assembly member Victor Hugo Cirigo.
It states that under no circumstances could drugs be supplied which could cause the death of a patient.
Patients wishing to forgo treatment would have to sign a release before a public notary indicating their desire to stop treatment.
Immediate family members would make the decision for minors and mentally impaired patients.
Health workers could declare themselves conscientious objectors and opt out of treating patients who decide not to lengthen their lives.
The bill also allows patients to specify if they want to donate organs.
The left-wing congress in Mexico City has recently passed a series of laws which are considered liberal in Latin America, such as legalising abortion in the first months of pregnancy and allowing gay marriages.
I view myself as deeply pro-life and this measure makes complete sense to me. Technology can delay natural death far beyond what is reasonable.
At some point the decision to allow death to happen (not to CAUSE death) is the right one.
Ditto.
I agree, this isn’t assisted suicide at all. I belive we can refuse treatment in this country as well.
This is fine just as long as it is understood that dialysis is trreatment, but food and water are simply sustenance.
the problem is when others step in on their behalf to refuse treatment. Terri Schiavo comes to mind
Terri wasn’t dying. That is a key distinction.
Not many years ago my mother refused cancer treatment after two visits for radiation therapy. She would not take chemo and chose to avoid delaying the inevitable. She had metastatic disease and died in about 4 months. She was 80 years and a devout Christian. Worst time of my life — God rest her soul.
Sounds right to me.
God bless you and your family. It is a painful thing to watch, I know. Your mother showed wonderful faith and you showed great courage in accepting her decisions.
Turn that statement around and apply it to organ harvesting. Technology has caused the harvest of the most sought after organs from living people. Technology speeds the "natural death" for the so-called greater cause.
This is not about choice it is about adapting definitions BECAUSE of technology in my opinion. Anyone can take their own life but anybody cannot take another's organs without defining death so it is possible.
Not interested in arguing just sayin'
Organs are rarely harvested from patients with malignant and terminal disease. Usually, they are taken from accident victims, if I recall correctly.
I don’t perceive you as being argumentative at all. I think we are looking at different circumstances instead.
Your comments are well considered, either way.
I think you did the right thing. Once you’re past 75 years old and in rapidly failing health, who wants to end up prolonging the agony of a certain death, which just ends up being both a financial and emotional drain for everyone involved.
Exactly-—
the issue is we now have ways to keep people alive that we didn’t have 50 years ago....
tube feedings, dialysis, ventilators, IV fluids etc.
A miracle and blessing for some, but just prolonging death not life for others.
I did not make the decision. Mom made the decision against our wishes and I have to give her credit for no lack of courage.
I too have kidney disease and because I also have kidney cancer I've only got 1 kidney and I've already decided that I'll never submit to dialysis. I just refuse to spend my life tied to a machine. I hope that I'm years away from having to enforce that decision, but either way I don't want to be kept alive by any machine.
Why is 75 the magic number for you?
Technology and definitions are the issue. Organ’s are harvested everyday from many people who are not terminally ill and who have no malignancy. Organ harvesting is also technology based on a definition of death.
At least for the people reaching 75 now, going beyond this age is already extra time for the person. Don’t forget this generation was among those who smoked cigarettes heavily earlier in their lives, which makes them highly vulnerable to lung problems and heart disease. People for within the last 25-30 years—who smoke cigarettes a lot less—will likely live a lot longer if they exercise and eat a decently healthy diet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.