“Death with dignity” bill in Uruguay: euthanasia could be ob-tained in just a few days

As it stands, the text provides that every person has a “right to euthanasia,” which they can claim “so that their death occurs in a painless, gentle manner that respects their dignity,” if the following conditions are met:

• The person is of legal age;
• Considered mentally competent;
• Is living in the “terminal stage of an incurable and irreversible illness” or, due to their in-curable and irreversible illness or health condition, is enduring “unbearable suffering” and experiencing “a serious and progressive deterioration in their quality of life”;
• Their desire to obtain euthanasia is free, serious, and firm;
• The opinions of a first (within three days) and then a second physician (within the follow-ing five days) are required. If the two opinions differ, a medical committee composed of three physicians, including a psychiatrist and a specialist in the patient's illness, will is-sue a final decision;
• Euthanasia is performed by the physician or “on his or her orders” by another person.

It should be noted that euthanasia may be performed from the sixth day after the initial request, and even sooner if there is concern that the patient will no longer be able to clearly express their wishes. By way of comparison, Belgian law imposes a minimum waiting period of one month if death is not expected in the short term.

Both public and private healthcare institutions are required to “provide their beneficiaries with the services necessary to exercise the right to euthanasia” “through doctors and internal healthcare teams.” Only these healthcare institutions will be able to do so. When euthanasia is incompatible with the philosophical or religious definition of an institution, the latter may re-quest that other institutions take care of its beneficiaries in this regard. It must refer the matter to the Ministry of Public Health.

The physician and other members of the healthcare team whose services are required for eu-thanasia may raise a conscientious objection to its practice. However, the medical assistance institution (umbrella organization for healthcare institutions) must guarantee the provision of euthanasia to the patient.

A Review Commission will be responsible for verifying a posteriori the legality of euthanasia per-formed and will submit an annual report to the Ministry of Health and the General Assembly.

Several critical points should be raised in this bill:

• The establishment of a “right to euthanasia” that conflicts with the right to conscien-tious objection of individuals who do not wish to cooperate in euthanasia. This could sooner or later lead to serious restrictions on the right to conscientious objection.
• The absence of conditions relating to suffering and the severity of the illness, when the patient requesting euthanasia is in the terminal stage of that illness;
• The subjective and difficult-to-assess nature of the condition of suffering experienced as unbearable;
• Access to euthanasia for psychiatric patients, without any additional criteria being pro-vided for in relation to cases of physical illness;
• The extremely short period of time in which euthanasia could be performed (6 days), in-cluding for psychiatric patients;
• The lack of specialization required of doctors asked to give their opinion on a request for euthanasia;
• The lack of a priori control of euthanasia, other than by a few doctors (maximum 5).

It is also noteworthy, with some surprise, that the bill establishes that “death by euthanasia will be considered a natural death.” Furthermore, although it is of a legal nature, this text puts for-ward a rather ideological definition of the expression “dying with dignity”: it would be “the right to die naturally, in peace, without pain, systematically avoiding artificially prolonging the pa-tient's life when there is no reasonable hope of improvement.” This definition is supposed to in-clude euthanasia.

The members of parliament in favour of the bill say they have based their work on the Belgian and Dutch models, which are, in their words, “robust systems with safeguards that have been in place for more than 20 years” (Federico Preve (FA) in the daily newspaper El Pais). However, it is well known that the safeguards provided for in Belgian and Dutch law have not prevented wide-spread abuses in euthanasia and, above all, an exponential increase in the number of euthana-sia cases in these countries, as in Canada.

“Sick people will be exposed to pressure, conditioning, and abuse,” retorts nationalist MP Ro-drigo Goni, who opposes the bill. He has proposed - without success - the creation of an a pri-ori control commission to verify that patients are requesting euthanasia freely and voluntarily. “The alternative [editor's note: to the decriminalization of euthanasia] is that everyone receives pain relief and access to palliative care,” he argued.

[UPDATE: The law decriminalizing euthanasia in Uruguay was passed on October 15, 2025.]