The word euthanasia comes from the Greek, Eu = good, Thanatos = death. Thus= "good death". Term that has evolved and at the moment makes reference to the act to put an end in the life of another person, in his petition, with the purpose of finishing his suffering.

This is a term badly used by communication means. The only thing that it talks about is the natural death, when the use of the instruments of life support or the medicine provision is suspended so that a natural death occurs completely, nonopposite in anything the natural law.

- Active euthanasia: This term talks about the death that is caused by a direct way to put an end to the suffering of the patient.

- The attended suicide is related vaguely to euthanasia. It happens when somebody gives information and necessary means to a patient, so that he could finish easily his own life.

- Christian belief were very well regitered by Tomas de Aquino, that condemned the suicide because:

* Transgress the natural desire to live

* Damage the other person

* The life is a gift from God and just him can take it

- Michel de Montaigne was the first important dissident between europeans writters. He wrote five essays that mentioned the suicide theme, and concluded that it is a rational and personal decision, under some circustances.

- A great percentage of patient terminals suffers of intratable pain or intolerability towards their poor quality of life. They rather that their life finish instead of continues until their body dies. Is it due to give them attendence?

- The suicide is a legal act that theoretically anyone can pratice. But a person who is terminally bad, in a hospital or incapacitated, cannot exert this option. In effect, they are being discriminated. Is it due to give them the same option of suicide that the healthy people have?

- Many groups of faith, like Christian and the Jew, think that God gives life and therefore, only he should to take it off. Then the suicide would be considered like a rejection to the supremacy of God and his plans of love. They feel that we are butlers of our own lives and the suicide should not to be an option. This is an important fact for a person who considers euthanasia and that is simultaneously member of one of these religious groups. Nevertheless, it fundamentally seems unjust to use a religious argument to decide policy publicly and. There is a considerable number of adults, with his religious beliefs, that they take euthanasia like a desirable moral option in some cases. There are also many secularistas, atheists, agnostics, etc, who actively differ from such religious argument.

- Many groups of faith think that the human suffering can have a positive value for the terminal patient. For them the suffering can be a divine opportunity to learn or to be purified. Some catholic Roman mentions that the Christians prefer that the use of analgesic be moderate, in order to voluntarily accept at least one part of their suffering and thus to associate in themselves of conscious way the sufferings of crucified Christ. These can be significant suggestions for some Christian believers. Nevertheless, these seem poor arguments to justify the negation of euthanasia to the people who do not share these beliefs.

- Much people argue that the pain experienced by the ill terminals can be controlled at pasaderos levels by means of the appropriate treatment. Nevertheless ten million individuals in North America do not have access to the suitable public health, and such control of pain is not available for all the patients. The reductions anticipated to the financing of health increase the possibility of suffering of terminal patients and will make the attendance most important. Also, for some, the intratable pain is not the main reason so that they wish to die, can be a loss of independence, dignity and capacities.

- When being the attended suicide and/or euthanasia available, some people will press her relatives so that they accept to die. This pressure can be very subtle. This is an important argument in favor of strict controls that would confirm that a patient is not being influenced by others.

- Some people will wish to die because they suffer of clinical depression. Another argument in favor of strict controls to confirm that an attendance asked for by a dying patient is conscious.

- In a period, when total medical financing is restricted and continuosly reduced, it is compromising for the ethics the application of extremely expensive treatment to terminal patients in order to extend theirs lives by few weeks. Isn't it? The money used in this ones is not available for the prenatal care. They care of the infant, etc, which lives would be saved and the quality of long term life for other would improve.

- Some people argue that the patients would be scared thinking that their doctors could kill them. This is not a valid interest. Only the patient could request the attendance. The doctor would continue working to find desires of his patients.

Many surveys are been made, but the results ranges according to the questions that are made. Some results give support to the eutanasia, so:

-60% in the United states - 74% in Canada - 80% in Great Britain - 80% in Australia.

The debates that are carried out generally on euthanasia finish romped by moral, religious, emotional prejudices, etc. But in fact, without questioning the different points of view, the question that is due to do is:

- To a person who feels completely bad, he feels that his life is not the sufficient reason to live in front of an intratable pain and the loss of dignity or the loss of some faculties. He request aid for a suicide repetedly. He is conscious and he is not in condition to pretend a depression. Is it possible to be applied euthanasia to him or support him in his suicide?

In the debates on euthanasia one is not due to discuss:

- If an ill terminal must request euthanasia, which always is a decision staff, but if people in general would have to occur the election to request her application.

- If the suicide would be allowed, in many jurisdictions the suicide is a legal act and has been thus by long time.

- If to a healthful person who is suffering a period of depression aid for the suicide is due to give him. Such attendance is not due to give.

- If one is due to allow that a person of the family requests the application of euthanasia, a petition thus must come from the terminal patient.

Finally, euthanasia is an election question: Is due to people to have control on theirs own bodies?

In the group that are against the abortion, are those that also are against euthanasia, and among them are generally:

- The conservative religious groups that are against to the freedom of election in many areas of the life.

- The medical associations that are dedicated to save and to extend the life and feel disconforts helping people to finish their lives.

- Incapacitated groups that have fear of euthanasia being the first steep towards the inclination to finish, without its will, with the lives of disabled people.

The Roman Catholic Church, the Luterana and the Episcopal one have emitted formal declarations opposed to euthanasia and the attended suicide. The groups of faith Evange'lica and Fundamentalista think that they are also in discord with these practices. The Unitary Association - Universalist, a liberal group, emitted a declaration in 1.988 in favor of euthanasia and, if there are suitable conditions, of the attended suicide. Similar declarations have been made by the United Church of Christ and the Methodist Church. The other Churches seem divided in this point. Most of religious bodies are not against passive euthanasia that is not more than to leave death takes place of a natural way without postponing it nor accelerating it.

- Canada

The suicide is legal, but never a doctor can help in him. A law to allow euthanasia could be created in the federal level and it would be applied throughout the country. There is a high number of cases that involve terminal patients who have looked for technical attendance for the suicide. The Government seems to be avoiding to discuss this point.

- The United States

The citizens in the state of Oregon approved measurement 16 of November of 1,994 that legalized euthanasia under limited conditions. The ' National Right to Life Committee' (Committee by the national right to the life) obtained I interdictate of the Court to delay the implementacio'n of the measurement.

The 7 of March of 1,996 the Ninth Court of Circuit of Appeals declared unconstitutional a law of Washington that criminalized to the doctor who helped terminal patients. The cut sent by a majority from 8 to 3 said that the law infringed the right to the freedom and the equal protection guaranteed by article 14 of the Constitution of the United States.

' Not state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens'

No state will make or impose laws that are brief them privilege or immunities of the citizens

The 30 States have their specific laws that criminalize the attended suicide. This article is only accepted by the western territories: Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, N. Mariana Islands, Oregon and Washington.

The Court it said ' when the patient ones or cannot persecute the freedom or the happiness and does not wish to have the life, the rigor of the State in vigor to maintain them alive he is the less obligatorio....Un competent mental, the adult terminal patient, having lived approximately all his life, has a strong interest in the freedom to choose a human and dignificada death instead of being reduced to the state of a boy - been of impotence, diaper, sosego, incompetente-'. The decision was the condemned by the Medical Association of Americans, the Roman Catholic Church. The activists of the AIDS received it with enthusiasm.

The 3 of April of 1,996 the Second Court of the Circuit of Appeals declared unconstitutional a state of law of New York that criminalized to the doctor who helped the suicide to pacienter terminal. A jury of 3 judges found that the law infringes the guaranteed equal protection in article 14 of the Constitution of the United States. This regulation affects 3 states solely: Connecticut, New York and Vermont.

The 18 of April of 1,996 the General Office of the public prosecutor of the Republic of the state of New York requested that the regulation was suspended by a short time, while the State appeals the decision to the Supreme Court, this has decided to hear arguments in January of 1,997 and to probably give its decision in the middle of 1.997.

- Australia

The northern territory passed a law the 25 of May of 1,995 that agreed the 16 of June of 1.995. To allow euthanasia activates, under careful controls, in 1.999 when certain previous requirements become. This territory consists of 1/6 of the mass terresre of Australia but it only has a population of 168,000 inhabitants. The law began as an account of private member Rights of the Terminally Ill Bil 1995 (Right of the project of law of terminal patients 1,995), sponsored by Marshall Perron. He was rejected by the Medical Association Australian and a variety of groups of ' Right to vida'. A conscience vote allowed that the member was free to vote independently of the discipline of the party. The original name was conserved. Law Llama the Rights of the Act of the Terminal Patient. The 1 of July of 1,996 was beginning, other projects of law are being introduced in other states Australians.

A survey lead by Newpoll in July of 1,995 found that 81% of the adult Australians support euthanasia voluntarily. This survey presents/displays an increase as opposed to the result of July of 1,994 where it was supported with a 79%. A voting by the Roy Morgan the Center of investigation in June of 1,995 showed similar results: 78% to favor. This it presents/displays an increase from 66% in 1.986. A separated voting showed that 60% of the doctors and 78% of the nurses in Victory favored euthanasia. An additional voting was taken between 6,500 Christian congregations, representing 19 denominations. They found that 40% were in agreement with the suicide attended for terminal patients, 30% was against, 30% do not know, do not respond. Between older believers the support was higher 50% of the sixty for ahead.

Bob Dent, 66 years, was the first person in taking advantage of the new law. It had been transferred to the north like misionero of a Church of England (Episcopal, Anglican). It was gotten to desilusionar with the policy within the Church and let his call to get to be a construction of estimation. The 1,991 diagnosed cancer to him and soon it became to the buddhism. A letter wrote saying ' If you defer with euthanasia volunteer, then does not use it, but please it does not deny the right to me. ' It said that no religious group would have to demand that it behaved with his rules and it would hold if unnecessary intratable pain until some doctor in his omnisciencia decided that already he had had sufficient and increased morphine until dying. In the presence of his wife and the doctor, initiated the process with a mortal drug injection.

Reverendo Harry Goodhew, Anglican archbishop of Sidney denounced the case the 7 of October of 1,996, he said ' the moral form of our nation is under threat with first euthanasia legally sanctioned in the north, and thus it is the relation between doctors and patients. Now one has been what [ Sic means this ] doctors are those that save lives, but under the northern law they also are the one who matan....Nosotros we must feel one congoja deep of the wife of whom died, and also to include/understand the human pain that brought this conclusion in the life of a man. But by these facts it is not possible to be allowed that they persuade to us that this action was right. The offense is moral. I cannot approve it from any point of view. '

A second ill terminal had medical attendance to die the 7 of January of 1.997. It was Janet Mills, 52 years, that suffered of a rare form of skin cancer that causes its disintegration. The alglicano dean of Sydney, Boak Jobbins, said that this death was another day of shame for Australia. A nation said ' somo Clearly that has arrived at the end of his recursos....no we have more things to offer to the terminal patient, to the old one or to the disabled person outside a fast exit with a needle. '

The 25 of March of 1,997 the Senate Australian rejected the law of the northern province. The vote went 38 to 33. This turned to the project in law, already had been approved by the lowest conditions. This action violates the public opinion. In addition to the found results above, a voting by all the nation of nurses showed that 70% were to favor,

- Cambodia

An individual to which the pardon refused to him to kill presented/displayed a demand with the intecio'n to erase all the references of euthanasia in the law of Columbia. The demand petardeo'. The 20 of May of 1,997, the Constitutional Court legalized euthanasia for terminal patients who have given clearly their assent. With a voting 6 to 3, the judges now will have to write a regulation and to consider each case separately.

- Holland

euthanasia in this country is legal.

- Japan

The 28 of March of 1,995 cut it of the District in Yakahoma found culprit to a doctor to assassinate a terminal patient of cancer that hoped to die in few days. It received a sentence of two years of prison, that was suspended. The then cut enunciated four conditions under which euthanasia in Japan would be allowed:

- the patient suffers a inaguantable physical pain.

- the death is inevitable and imminent

- all the measures possible have been taken to eliminate the pain

- the patient has expressed clearly his consent.

Judge Matsuura said that the action of the Dr. Tokunag did not reunite all the conditions, discussed that the patient had not made clear expressions on his physical pain nor had given his consent. The action of the doctor cannot be considered euthanasia and represents an illegal completion of the life of the patient.

15 of May the last, in the plenary one of the Constitutional Court, the demand against a norm of the Penal Code, Article 326 was put under to consideration, homicide by mercy. Beginning therefore the debate on the approval or not of euthanasia in Colombia.

Soon of exposure of Carlos Gaviria, that agreed in which a doctor ended the life of a patient with intense sufferings and, added, would not have to go to the jail, three magistrates (Jose Hernandez, Hernando Herrera and Vladimiro Naranjo) were pronounced in against being based on which the right to the life is fundamental and inviolable. Later it took the word Jorge Arango, who affirmed that the most important right is the one of the freedom and that the life without freedom does not have sense. Immediately Eduardo Cifuentes took part, who said that the freedom is not over the life, but the life does not prevail either over the freedom, it was pronounced in agreement and it said that the Court it had to indicate in that cases the participation of third finishing with the life of the patient was valid. According to him : the failure would be only applied when it was a terminal patient, and when it totally was informed into his conditions of health. Soon they took part : Alexander Martinez, Fabio Moro'n and Antonio Barrera. At the moment of the voting only three magistrates saved their vote, being thus Colombia one of the first countries in accepting euthanasia. The 29 of May six magistrates who gave their vote to favor reunited to review the final text of the failure, Cifuentes expressed their disagreement there since its thought did not take shelter completely. Now only he lacks the regulation that the Congress will have to do on the application of euthanasia.

Because of the discord of Cifuentes in the text of the final sentence the failure can arrive to be annulled.

The Catholic Church rejects euthanasia emphatically and trying to orient to the community as opposed to a so controversial subject it has decided, in head of monsignor Alberto Giraldo, president of the Episcopal conference and archbishop of Medelli'n, to present/display a deca'logo, where it as opposed to exposes his position euthanasia :

to The action is never morally allowed that by its nature causes direct or intentionally the death of the patient.

b. Therefore, never he is allowed to kill a patient, not even to see undergo it or not make suffer it, although he requested it specifically. Neither the patient, nor the doctors nor the sanitary staff, familiar them have the faculty to decide or to cause the death of a person.

c. He is not allowed to deny to a patient the benefit of vital cares are which surely would die, although suffers badly of a incurable one.

d. He is not allowed to resign to well-taken care of or treatments proportionate and available, when they are known that they are effective, although is only partially. In particular, it is not had to omit the treatment to patients in comma if some possibility of recuperation exists.

and There is obligation no to put under the terminal patient to new operations, when the founded hope does not have to do more llevadera to him its life.

f. He is allowed to provide narcotic and analgesic that alleviates the pain, although they attenuate the conscience and they cause of secondary way a shortening of the life of the patient, provided in of the action it is to calm the pain and disimuladamente not to accelerate (intentionally) its death.

g. He is allowed to let apply extraordinary procedures to a patient in comma when there is lost all cerebral activity. But it is not it when the brain of the patient conserves certain vital functions, if that omission causes immediate death to him.

h. The minusva'lidas people or with malformations have same the rights that the other people, in which she talks about the reception of therapeutic treatments. In the prenatal phase and the postbirthday they have themselves to provide the same cures that to the healthy fetuses and children.

i. The State cannot attribute the right to legalize euthanasia, because the life of the innocent is a good that prevails over the same power.

j. euthanasia is a crime against the human life and the divine law, of which people in charge become all the ones who take part in the decision and execution of the homicida act.

Finally the Church requested the cancellation of the failure since it was approved with violation of the had process and in the middle of contradictions between magistrates on his final text. Also it requested that if the failure were annulled the case it had been defined soon by a room of conjueces.

This page was made taking in account data that have appeared in the Colombian newspaper El tiempo and in the page Web Euthanasia and assited forces suicide on.