HUMAN RIGHT ADVISORY
CHR-A12-2000
"ON THE PROPOSED LAW LEGALIZING EUTHANASIA"
To be known as Magna Carta of Patients' Rights is House Bill No. 564
introduced by Representatives Raul B. del Mar, Oscar R. Rodriguez, Hilarion J.
Ramiro, Jr., Robert Ace S. Barbers, Ma. Catalina Loreto- Go, Julita LorenzoVillareal, Gerardo S. Espina and Gorgonio P. Unde. The bill seeks to declare the
rights of patients and prescribing penalties for violations thereof. In general,thebill
has laudable motives to declare as the policy of the State to insure and protect the
rights of patients to decent, humaneand quality of health care.
Includedinsaid bill, however,is Section 4 (7), which reads:
‘Right to [Self- Determination] REFUSE DIAGNOSTIC AND MEDICAL
TREATMENT
Thepatient hastheright to refuse diagnostic and MEDICAL
treatment procedures, Provided, That a) his of age TWENTY ONE
and [of sound] MENTALLY COMPETENT;b) heis informed of the
medical consequencesofhis refusal; c) he releases those involved in
his care from any obligation relative to the consequences of his
decisions; and d) his refusal will not jeopardize public health and
safety.
An adult with a sound mind may execute an advance directive for
physicians not to put him on prolongedlife support if, in the future
his conditions is such that there is little or no hope of reasonable
recovery. The qualifications listed as a, b, and c of the preceding
paragraph shall be considered as satisfied if a patient whose
condition makes him unable to express his will has executed an
advancedirective.”
Thesaid provisionswill lead to “euthanasia”or the termination of the patients’
life. A similar bill, House Bill No. 8148, wasfiled in the House of Representatives last
year authorizing the patient to terminatehis life uponhis will or with the assistance of
the physician. With the opposition from the several quarters including the CHR, the
bill was not acted uponby the Houseof Representative.
To make it more acceptable, the present bill allows the patient to refuse
diagnostic and medical treatment procedures. The conditions are that the patient is
mentally competent,is informed of medical consequenceoftherefusal, and to release
those involved in his case of any obligation relative to his decision, and lastly, his
decision will not jeopardize public health and safety. Said provisions is still
“euthanasia” or mercy- killing.
“Euthanasia” is defined as the “termination of humanlife by painless means
for the purpose of ending physical suffering.” It is a form of suicide andviolates the
constitutional policy that the State valued the dignity of every humanperson(Article
II, Sec. 11, Phil. Const.). Any act or omission which in itself or by deliberate intent
causes death in orderto eliminate suffering constitutes murderandis contrary to the
dignity of the humanpersonsandtotherespect dueto his Creator.
35