On 17 February 2020, the live broadcast of Antena 1 took place at the Aula Magna of the Faculty of Medicine. This broadcast was attended by individuals who discussed the decriminalization of euthanasia.

This topic had already been discussed in Parliament in May 2018. However, the diplomas presented by some of the parties that defended the decriminalization of euthanasia were generally rejected. Two years later, the Portuguese Parliament discussed this issue again and the country is divided once more.

"Euthanasia: for or against?" was one of many debates promoted by the most diverse communication channels during this week, in order to fight misinformation about this topic.

The debate at FMUL was marked by the “for/against” dichotomy established between the two sides of the table that occupied the entire extension of the Aula Magna’s stage. The seven participants looked at the audience almost as if it were a lesson, but in reality, they were talking to microphones that broadcast their voices, in real time, to the entire Portuguese territory. FMUL's Aula Magna was the epicentre of the debate on a topic as dividing as it was controversial, with staunch supporters on both sides of the discussion.

From left to right, the public could watch Graça Varão, founder of the “STOP Euthanasia” movement, Carlos Costa Gomes, researcher at the Bioethics Institute of the Catholic University of Portugal, Miguel Oliveira da Silva, Professor of Medical Ethics at FMUL, António Jorge, Antena 1 journalist who moderated the debate, Eurico Reis, Chief Judge, Álvaro Beleza, Physician, and Gilberto Couto, Gastroenterologist and representative of the Civic Movement for the Decriminalization of Assisted Death.

Antena 1 journalist António Jorge opened the debate reminding everyone that the programme was being broadcasted live to the entire country, via radio and Facebook. The session began with the definition of the concept of euthanasia: "Right to a death without pain or suffering for incurable patients, practiced with their consent, in a dignified and medically assisted manner", a definition that was unanimously accepted by all those present at the table.

FMUL's Professor of Medical Ethics, Miguel Oliveira da Silva, was the first to intervene and immediately raised the question that 80% to 85% of patients who need it are not entitled to quality palliative care in the NHS. He also stated that “there is no freedom without equity” and that, therefore, the entire population must be entitled to this type of care. Professor Miguel Oliveira da Silva believes that there should be a referendum to give voice to all Portuguese who are not represented in Parliament.

In turn, Chief Judge Eurico Reis regretted the lack of palliative care, but he pointed out that the imprisonment penalty can be up to 3 years for a doctor who assists death and he stated that “he does not want doctors to be considered criminals for helping people”.

Carlos Costa Gomes, a researcher at the Bioethics Institute of the Catholic University of Portugal was the third to intervene and introduced a new concept to the debate: “human dignity”, as an intrinsic quality of the human being. Carlos Costa Gomes defends the referendum and that “palliative care must be provided under any circumstances”.

Doctor Álvaro Beleza immediately raised a question that took everyone present by surprise: "Who am I to limit someone's right to die?" Álvaro Beleza highlighted the right to freedom and individual autonomy, at the time of departure: “The quality of democracy depends on not preventing the freedom of others”. He defended the decriminalization of euthanasia because he believes in the "right to suicide of a conscious person" and in the decriminalization of doctors who support these cases.

The “Stop Euthanasia” movement was represented by Graça Varão, who stands on the other side of the coin. She states that by decriminalizing the practice of euthanasia, the role of doctors is reversed by stopping to support and promote health and well-being. When justifying her position, she used the words "disposal culture" and "trivialization of death" as consequences of passing a law that does not consider health professionals who practice euthanasia as criminals.

Closing these first interventions, Gilberto Couto, gastroenterologist and representative of the Civic Movement for the Decriminalization of Assisted Death, reinforced his position recalling that, even at the time of death, we must be free in our choices and that this decriminalization “stimulates individual freedom and the protection of private life”.

Throughout the debate, journalist Marta Pacheco filtered the interventions and comments that viewers placed on Facebook in the comments’ box of the live broadcast. Some of those present at the Aula Magna also had the opportunity to ask questions to the participants sitting at the table and interpolate their interventions with new points of view.

The debate moved on and the words that were heard the most were: referendum, individual freedom, human dignity, respect for life, democracy, and information.

Professor Miguel Oliveira da Silva questioned whether "is it healthy for democracy to make such a decision without further debate?" From the FMUL professor's point of view, “there is no freedom without information” and it is necessary to involve the Portuguese more in this discussion and offer them tools to take a stand.

Carlos Costa Gomes recalled that there is a negative opinion on the part of the Medical and Nurses Associations and questioned whether this decision should then be left to politicians alone. Álvaro Beleza reiterated that, “the President is the guardian of the code of ethics and made a very balanced decision”.

Following this sequence of ideas, Graça Varão pointed out the role of “solidarity” as an essential key for the development of any society. She considers the Portuguese population to be quite unsupportive, referring to the need to “humanize Portugal and not promote a culture of disposal”.

When the question of the need for a referendum was raised, opinions diverged again. Chief Judge Eurico Reis asked his table colleagues: "What question would you ask in the referendum?", His concerns were about the biased opinions regarding a vote that only allowed to choose "Yes" or "No". In his opinion, a referendum should not be held since “a referendum may produce false arguments”.

When the discussion was sliding on to the political level, Carlos Costa Gomes took advantage of his intervention to draw attention to the fact that euthanasia raises social and philosophical issues, which cannot be discussed using party doctrines.

Throughout this debate, the “for/against” dichotomy was defended with valid arguments from both sides. Many questions remained unanswered, but some points of view were confirmed.

On 20 February 2020, the proposed law on decriminalizing euthanasia was approved by Parliament. New challenges arise for our country, so that it does not fail to promote compassion, tolerance and solidarity, deepening individual knowledge and valuing human dignity and the right to quality of life.

At the close of the broadcast that marked the first partnership between the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Lisbon and Antena 1, journalist António Jorge recalled that there is still much to discuss about this topic, always trying to listen to the arguments of the “two sides of a complex coin”.

 

Catarina Monteiro
Editorial Team