Ana Estrada fought successfully in court to obtain the right to decide when to end her life with the help of medical professionals.
A Peruvian psychologist who suffered from an incurable disease that weakened her muscles and had her confined to her bed for several years died by euthanasia, becoming the first person in the country to obtain the right to die with medical assistance, her lawyer said Monday.
Ana Estrada fought for years in Peruvian courts for the right to die with dignity, and became a celebrity in the conservative country where euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal.
In 2022, Estrada was granted an exception by the nation’s Supreme Court, which upheld a ruling by a lower court that gave Estrada the right to decide when to end her life, and said that those who helped her would not be punished. Estrada became the first person to obtain the right to die with medical assistance in Peru.
“Ana’s struggle for her right to die with dignity has helped to educate thousands of Peruvians about this right and the importance of defending it,” her lawyer, Josefina Miró Quesada, said in a statement. “Her struggle transcended our nation’s borders.”
The problem is “who decides.” In a perfect world, the patient would always be of sound mind, and the patient would always decide. But then who decides if the patient is of sound mind?
This is absolutely true, but that barrier to entry is always going to exclude some people who arguably should not be excluded. There will always be dissatisfaction, and there will always be complaints like yours.
Professional psychiatrists, the family and the individual… like seriously. Do you think the process is easy? Go on, brew some coffee or tea and then sit to search how certain countries handle dignified end of life.
See how that process is usually a long series of tests, conversations and verification. It’s not “let’s pop down to the doctors and get grandma euthanised”. It’s an insane amount of beurocracy and a lot of time before you even get close to a due date, and even then you can cancel at any time.
I think people need to get more informed about this issue, because you can’t exactly form an opinion without seeing how something like that can work IRL, when it’s been proven to work IRL. More people are accepting of it and a lot of pain and heartache will be spared because of it, because at the end of the day it’s about dignity.
Forcing people to continue when they can have no life to continue, when they are a financial and emotional burden on their families and unable to actually grow and live, like an actual person, like me and you. To force them to just sit there, like a potted plant, like a doll you put away on the shelf when you return to your life. That is selfish, that is undignified.
People try to go down the slippery slope that’ll turn into a culling of the sick or old.
Nobody is suggesting that. What is being suggested is let people choose when it’s time. I agree with that. Let people die on their own terms Oregon has the law and people often ask for it and then don’t use it
“A culling of the sick”? Are you kidding me? Bruh, we liv in western liberal capitalist democracies. We want them to live so we can exploit the shit out of then.
Secondly, you’re saying because the process is rarely used, it should not be codified? How does that make sense? It still needs a form of legal protocol and framework, especially for something like this - and that includes several steps, several people, consensus.
Semantics, mf. Do you speak it?!
You’re trying to create a slippery slope when one isn’t there. Nobody is talking states executing people. That’s when the patient doesn’t have a choice.
The debate is around people making their own decision which I support.