The Socialist Party MP, Isabel Moreira, stated that despite the Constitutional Court declaring some provisions of the euthanasia law unconstitutional, the “law has been defended and can be regulated” by the next government.
“The court finds only two unconstitutionality issues, dismissing all substantial unconstitutionality claims that questioned the existence of the law and its regime with a range of new, old, and very old arguments,” explained Isabel Moreira in an Instagram post.
Thus, for the socialist, the “law remains essentially intact.”
“As a result of the Constitutional Court’s decision, consultation with a specialist doctor is already mandatory today, and the obligation to indicate the nature of the reasons motivating the conscience objection has been removed. The law can be regulated without prejudice to a mere formal correction of it,” added the Socialist Party deputy.
In a statement, the Constitutional Court declared six provisions unconstitutional, responding to two requests for successive review: one from a group of PSD deputies and another from the Ombudsman.
Specifically, the judges found unconstitutional the article stating that the guiding doctor and the patient decide on the method for medically-assisted death; the clause allowing the patient to decide on the method of medically-assisted death, and another provision where, during the clinical procedure, the patient can “in an informed and conscious manner” choose how to end their life.
Also declared unconstitutional was the article stating that it was not required for the patient to be examined by a specialist doctor. As a consequence, the more general article “which legalizes assisted death under certain conditions” is also against the Constitution.
The judgment was voted on by all judges of the Constitutional Court, although 12 expressed partial dissent on some clauses or articles.
Only the President of the Constitutional Court, José João Arantes, voted for the text without objections. He emphasized that the exercise of euthanasia must be controlled with great rigor and extreme requirements, as it involves an irreversible decision made by people in a state of great vulnerability, reiterating the unconstitutionality noted by the Constitutional Court in the bill approved by Parliament.
