The debate on legislation that allows medically assisted death is complex and crosses very diverse areas of knowledge and study.

On February 20, the Assembly of the Republic appreciates and votes on several Bills aimed at legislating Medically Assisted Death (MMA) or Anticipation of Death, which include voluntary active euthanasia and assisted suicide, with consequent revision of the Penal Code.This debate is nothing new and takes place for more than 20 years in Portuguese society. In this debate, legal, moral, religious and civic issues are raised that it is important to consider and on which LIVRE has a position based on humanism and universalism. Individuality"Opinions are divided between the defense of life at all costs and freedom of individual choice. And invariably the question arises: is life an obligation or a right?" The right to decide on one's own life must belong to each individual. The pains, traumas, and difficulties that sufferers go through can only be felt by their own, and it should not be possible to impose on those who suffer a will that is not yours. The right to life itself is individual, and on it only one can answer, so that the existence of options, for those who experience unbearable and indebelable suffering, is also in itself a right. LegalityThe right to life is a universal right, guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in Article 3 states that "Every individual has the right to life (...)", and by the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, which in article 24 states that "Human life is inviolable". How can MMA be legal?" Medically assisted death is a mechanism requested by the patient, based on their conscious, free and enlightened will, and is therefore an inalienable decision of the citizen. It is for this reason that MMA does not constitute a violation of human life, but rather a guarantor of the individual who has the possibility of opting or not for MMA the affirmation of the dignity and freedom of his life, consecrated and decisive values in a rule of law. Health carePalliative care is decisive and should be improved before any decision on euthanasia. How can we allow the end of our lives without trying to improve it?" The discussion on medically assisted death often uses palliative care as a substitution factor in the face of MMA, as if interdependent. As urgent and pressing the improvement of health care delivery – which includes palliative care – this does not exclude, or avoid, the need for MMA for some people. There are cases of suffering that palliative care does not solve or relieve sufficiently, making the citizen hostage with a prolong of suffering that he himself may not desire. Any citizen under these circumstances should have the right to choose. THE LIVRE defends medically assisted death, having presented in its electoral program a proposal to dignify the end of life and death, through decriminalization and legislation of assisted death. For this, he advocated the provision of specialized medical and psychological support, so that all competing aspects for the informed and conscious decision of the patient are addressed from a clinical point of view. He also argued that it is also up to the State to ensure that, in situations of extreme physical and/or psychological suffering, all possible care from a biological, psychological and social point of view is provided, ensuring adequate and human follow-up, including the provision of palliative care, in situations of terminal disease and end of life. Finally, THE FREE considers that the rights and freedom of conscience of third parties should always be safeguarded, in particular family members and health professionals. On the proposals put forward by political parties in the Assembly of the Republic, THE FREE notes that the proposals have similarities to each other, both in the reasoning and terminology, or in the legal requirements they intend to adopt. Without prejudice to the objective they aim to achieve, consistent with the proposal of THE FREE, there are proposals that sin by the inaccuracy of the terms used, by the eventually inadequate deadlines, and even by the possible unconstitutionality. None of the bills focuseon on the question of choosing lethal drugs to be used. This is a technical choice so far never made by virtue of the current wording of the Penal Code, which criminalizes suicide aid, it would nevertheless be necessary for this choice to be able to comply, after a possible decriminalization of Medically Assisted Death, at universal, transparent criteria, and subject to scrutiny and review, in the image of the