
Uruguay could become first in Latin America to pass euthanasia laws
Aug. 14 (UPI) -- Uruguay's Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Parliament, has approved a bill on so-called "death with dignity" that would regulate euthanasia in cases of incurable illness and extreme suffering. The measure passed 64-29 and heads to the Senate.
If enacted, Uruguay would become the first country in Latin America with such legislation.
The bill approved by the lower house states that euthanasia may be requested only by adults with full mental capacity who have been diagnosed with a terminal, incurable and irreversible illness that causes unbearable suffering and severely diminishes their quality of life. The measure does not allow assisted suicide.
Requests must be made in writing and in person. A treating physician will evaluate the case within three days, followed by an independent second opinion within five days. If the two opinions differ, a medical board will decide within an additional five days.
Additionally, the proposal would create an honorary commission to review cases, oversee compliance with the procedure and report to the Health Ministry and Parliament. Violations would be subject to penalties under the Penal Code.
During debate in Congress, Health Committee chairman Luis Enrique Gallo said the bill "is about love, humanity and empathy" and about people "with very serious illnesses who are suffering," as well as a Uruguay that would be "once again a leader in rights" if the legislation advances.
On the other side, "Never, never can an early death be a human solution," said Deputy Rodrigo Goñi, who called the measure a "disgraceful law."
"What a paradox that in the year of the bicentennial, this Parliament is writing, I would say, the saddest page in its history," he added.
Parliamentary debate in Uruguay has intensified since 2019, driven by the case of former sports official Fernando Sureda, who defended his right to die with dignity after being diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Polls conducted before the parliamentary debate showed strong public support for the measure. In 2020, 82% of respondents favored legalizing euthanasia, and in 2022 the polling firm Factum found 77% in support.
In the Senate, the ruling Broad Front party holds a majority and is the main backer of the measure. Lawmakers are expected to pass it before the end of the year.
In Latin America, the regulation of assisted dying remains largely uncharted territory, with progress driven mainly by court rulings rather than laws passed by legislatures.
Colombia is the most prominent example. In 1997, the Constitutional Court decriminalized euthanasia for patients with terminal illnesses, and in 2015 it established a mandatory medical protocol. In 2022, the right was expanded to include people with serious, incurable conditions that cause intense suffering.
However, legislative regulation has lagged behind, and the debate over conscientious objection and effective access remains unresolved.
In 2023, Ecuador legalized euthanasia after a landmark Constitutional Court ruling in favor of Paola Roldán, a patient with ALS. The country is still working on a regulatory framework to implement the decision.
Elsewhere in the region, proposals are moving forward more cautiously or face strong political and religious opposition.
Chile has been debating a bill on euthanasia and medically assisted dying since 2021. The measure was approved in the Chamber of Deputies, but has stalled in the Senate due to changes in government and pressure from conservative groups.
In Argentina, parliamentary debate has seen several failed attempts, though public pressure is growing after high-profile cases that highlight the lack of options for terminally ill patients.
Other countries, including Mexico, Peru and Costa Rica, have introduced bills or filed court petitions seeking to recognize the right to die with dignity, but without tangible results.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Trump, Putin tout progress to end war in Ukraine, but no cease-fire announced
1 of 14 | Russian President Vladimir Putin (L) shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump after a joint press conference following a meeting at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska on Friday. Photo by Bob Strong/UPI | License Photo Aug. 15 (UPI) -- U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, after a 3 1/2-hour face-to-face summit in Alaska on Friday, said they made progress in reaching a deal on peace in Ukraine, though no cease-fire was announced. The two leaders appeared before reporters at 3 p.m. local time but took no questions from them. Their meeting began at 11:30 a.m. Alaska time. They also didn't mention a key issue: whether Russia or Ukraine will give up acquired land. But when asked later in person by Sean Hannity on Fox News whether they agreed on a land swap, Trump said: "Those are points that we negotiated and those are points that we largely have agreed on. Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they'll say no." He also told Hannity that he would hold off on imposing more sanctions or "other severe consequences" against Russia if the war wasn't halted. Earlier this month he threatened harsh sanctions. Neither president gave any details to reporters. "We had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to," Trump said, speaking for 3 1/2 minutes. "We didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there." He said: "There's no deal until there's a deal." Putin, speaking first for about eight minutes and 30 seconds, said an accord to end the 3 1/2-year-old war will "pave the path toward peace in Ukraine." The agreement must deal with security. "As I've said, the situation in Ukraine has to do with fundamental threats to our security," Putin said. "I agree with President Trump, as he has said today, that naturally, the security of Ukraine should be ensured as well. Naturally, we have prepared to work on that," he said. Missing from the summit: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. He and his aides were not invited, though Trump has said he hopes for a second meeting that will include him. Putin said Friday that he suggested the next meeting to take place in Moscow. "That's an interesting one, I'll get a little heat on that one," Trump said. "But I could see it possibly happening." Trump said he will discuss details of the first meeting with allies and Zelensky. "I will call up NATO in a little while. I will call up the various people that I think are appropriate,"Trump said. "And I'll, of course, call up President Zelensky and tell him about today's meeting. It's ultimately up to them." Putin told Ukrainian and European leaders not to intervene. "We expect that Kyiv and European capitals will perceive all this in a constructive manner and will not create any obstacles, will not make attempts to disrupt the emerging progress through provocations and behind-the-scenes intrigues," he said. Oleksiy Goncharenko, a member of Ukraine's parliament, posted Friday on Telegram: "It seems that Putin has gained more time. No cease-fire or de-escalation has been agreed upon." John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser during his first term, told CNN: "Trump did not lose, but Putin clearly won. Trump didn't come away with anything, except more meetings. "He escaped sanctions. He's not facing a cease-fire. The next meeting is not set. ... It's far from over, but I'd say Putin achieved most of what he wanted. Trump achieved very little." The two leaders praised each other. "Our negotiations took place in a respectful, constructive and mutually respectful atmosphere, were very thorough and useful," Putin said. Trump said: "We had many, many tough meetings, good meetings," and "always had a fantastic relationship with President Putin." He said their relationship was hurt by investigations during his first term in office about Moscow's interference in the 2016 election. "We were interfered with by the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax," Trump said. "I've made it a little bit tougher to deal with, but he understood it." In the interview with Hannit, Trump said: "So I think the meeting was a 10 in the sense that we got along great. And it's good when, you know, two big powers get along, especially when they're nuclear powers." Trump and Putin stood in front of blue backdrop that read "Pursuing Peace." It was the seventh face-to-face meeting between the two leaders. The summit was originally supposed to be one-on-one with interpreters. During the president's flight to Alaska, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters aboard Air Force One about a change in plans for the meeting, saying there wouldn't be an expected one-on-one meeting -- with interpreters -- between Trump and Putin. The two men met that way at their meeting on July 16, 2018, in Helsinki, Finland. Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 14, 2022, when Joe Biden was the U.S. president. Putin has had two terms as president since 2000. He was prime minister from 2008 to 2012. Putin told reporters he agreed with Trump that the war wouldn't have happened if Trump were president then. He also said Trump will "help us bring back business life and pragmatic relations between Russia and the U.S." In the summit, Trump was joined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also is Trump's national security adviser, as well as U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff. Putin was accompanied by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Yuri Ushakov, an aide on foreign policy issues. After the bilateral portion of the summit, the delegations were to meet for lunch, but The Wall Steet Journal reported it didn't happen. Trump's delegation included Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and chief of staff Susie Wiles. Before Putin departed, he laid flowers on the graves of Soviet soldiers at Fort Richardson Memorial Cemetery. They died while bringing equipment from the United States to the Soviet Union during World War II. The U.S. purchased Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867 for $7.2 million. Alaska became a U.S. state in 1959. After Putin's plane departed, Trump left around 4:20 p.m. and headed back to Washington, D.C. Leaders' arrival Their planes both arrived at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, which is geographically close to Russia. It is a U.S. Army and Air Force base. Trump first arrived aboard Air Force One after flying 4,000 miles from Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. The nonstop flight lasted six hours. Before the flight, he posted on Truth Social: 'HIGH STAKES!!! About 30 minutes later, Putin got off an Ilyushin II-96, the primary aircraft in the Russian presidential fleet. His flight lasted 12 hours from Russia's Magadan Airport in the far eastern nation. The party broke their journey for a "full-fledged regional trip," including a visit to an industrial plant and a meeting with the regional governor, according to the Kremlin. Trump didn't leave the plane until Putin's jet landed. While on the ground, he greeted Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, and Gov. Mike Dunleavy, all Republicans. Trump met Putin near his plane, and they shook hands. They went on a red carpet and posed for a photo. They didn't answer any questions from reporters. Putin didn't answer whether he would "stop killing civilians," appearing to gesture that he couldn't hear the question. Putin joined Trump in the U.S. president's limousine, known as the Beast, as they departed from the tarmac. They both sat in the back of the vehicle. American fighter jets flew overhead. In war-torn Ukraine, Zelensky before the summit urged an end to the war in a video post on X on Friday. "On the day of negotiations, the Russians are killing, as well," he said. "And that speaks volumes. ... Ukraine is ready to work as productively as possible to bring the war to an end, and we count on a strong position from America. Everything will depend on this -- the Russians factor in American strength. Make no mistake -- strength." He added: "Russia must end the war that it itself started and has been dragging out for years. The killings must stop. A meeting of leaders is needed -- at the very least, Ukraine, America, and the Russian side -- and it is precisely in such a format that effective decisions are possible. Security guarantees are needed. Lasting peace is needed. Everyone knows the key objectives. I want to thank everyone who is helping to achieve real results." Unease over the staging of a summit on Ukraine without Zelensky also showed little sign of abating, with protests in the streets of Anchorage in support of Kyiv and questioning Trump's ability to negotiate a deal with Putin. Ukrainians were also on the streets of Kyiv, demonstrating outside the U.S. embassy, demanding the return of their loved ones held by Russia over "land swaps" envisaged in any peace deal.


Fox News
8 hours ago
- Fox News
'The Obama Legacy is In Trouble': Julian Epstein, former Democrat, Weighs in on Obama's Mamdani Call
Julian Epstein, attorney, former chief counsel to the Democratic House Judiciary Committee, and NYP Columnist, joined the Guy Benson Show with guest host Harry Hurley today to discuss the lost state of the Democratic party. The pair weighed in on the radicalism of Zohran Mamdani and why the 'Obama brand' suffers from his reported phone call with the radical. Epstein also weighed in on the 'weak' state of Democratic leadership in the House and in the Senate, and you can listen to the full interview below! Listen to the full interview below: Listen to the full podcast below:


Politico
9 hours ago
- Politico
Judge plans Wednesday ruling on Alina Habba's authority as New Jersey's top prosecutor
But the Trump administration on July 22 fired Grace, with Bondi posting on social media that the department 'does not tolerate rogue judges.' Two days later, Trump withdrew his nomination of Habba as U.S. attorney, and she resigned her position as interim U.S. attorney. She was then appointed first assistant U.S. attorney, allowing her to automatically take on the acting role. Bondi also said she made Habba 'Special Attorney to the Attorney General,' which she said gave her the authority of a U.S. attorney. The Trump administration argues that Habba began the job March 28, which started the 120-day clock, and so the judges did not have a vacancy to fill when they chose Grace to replace her. In court, Trump administration attorneys added some clarity to Habba's start date, noting that her immediate predecessor, John Giordano, had continued signing orders as interim U.S. attorney until March 28 and that Habba's first day of pay was March 29. They characterized Trump's announcement, made in a social media post, as a 'directive' to Pam Bondi to appoint Habba. Brann suggested that maneuver to keep Habba in charge of the office as special attorney would render the law on appointing U.S. attorneys 'pointless' since a person could do the job indefinitely without Senate confirmation. 'Even if you believe [the law] is ambiguous — and I don't think it is — going to the legislative history is a death knell,' Brann said, referring to a Senate report made during the passage of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act in 1998. The distinction between Habba's role as acting U.S. attorney and special attorney is important because the acting position can only serve 120 days, while there's no time limit for a special attorney. Nevertheless, later in the hearing, Brann said, 'It's very likely that Alina Habba is going to end up down the road as the United States attorney of the district of New Jersey.' He did not elaborate on his reasoning. The defendants challenging Habba's authority argued in part that her nomination by Trump made her ineligible to serve in the acting role under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. 'There is no support for a finding that withdrawal of the nomination would remove someone from the bar,' said Giraud attorney Thomas Mirigliano. But Henry Whitaker, counselor to the attorney general, said the language of the law is written in the present tense. 'At that moment,' he said, referring to the Trump administration's legal maneuvering, 'there was no pending nomination.' 'This is not circumvention,' Whitaker said. 'It is simply a way for the executive branch to have officials temporarily serving the functioning of the office.' The two sides also debated whether the Trump administration could stack 120-day interim appointments. 'It can't be the case ... that the attorney general can terminate an interim appointment on day 119 and then appoint another person?' said Gerry Krovatin, an attorney for Pina. 'That could go on forever.'