Possibly the first in the history of the Congress of the Philippines, a voluntary

euthanasia or mercy killing and living will-related proposal known as Senate

Bill No. 1887 or the Natural Death Act was filed by Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago. The bill seeks to recognize the fundamental right of adult persons
to decide their own health care, including the decision to have life-sustaining
treatment withheld or withdrawn in instances of a terminal condition or
permanent unconscious condition
In contrast, Euthanasia gives terminally-ill patients a medical treatment of
choosing between a prolonged life of agonizing pain or a peaceful death. It is
not a compulsory treatment, in which every patient who has little or no
chance of recovering will have to choose euthanasia. Euthanasia is granted
with the will of the patient or the surrogate of the patient and it is only upon
their request that physicians perform it. The legalization of euthanasia does
not aspire to violate the ethical and moral code, but rather just provide an
option to those who need it. For example, to consider that financial cost of
keeping a person alive being dependent on a life-support machine is very
enormous, and that 80% of the Filipinos live in poverty, how can the family
afford keeping the patient on life support, knowing that the patient will be in
vegetative state, no matter how he was kept alive? With the statistics that
only 2 out of 10 terminally-ill patients survives because of proper medication,
it is then illogical to hope for the patient with no enough money for
medication to recover from severe diseases; this then results to euthanasia.
And since euthanasia takes place anyway, even without the ratification of the
bill, it is better to legalize it so that it will be practiced under careful
guidance, doctors will have to report these activities, and so that physicians
will not have any responsibility over the death of the patient.
the emotional distress that is caused by seeing your loved one in a
vegetative state for an extended period of time while doctors continually tell
you that there is no hope for recovery is potentially traumatizing. Some
people who consider this as suffering for the vegetable loved one will want
euthanasia, but they haven't the option. Legalising this will not force
everyone to take this course, but rather only provide an option.

Lastly, the medical facilities and time that is devoted towards the vegetative
patient with low chances of recovery could be spent helping someone else in
greater need. Already in the Philippines we have a shortage of medical
personnel and equipment, this additional burden will only cause more
damage.
There are 3 types of euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia (euthanasia performed
with the patient's consent), non-voluntary euthanasia (where the patient is

unable to give their informed consent, for example child euthanasia).and

Involuntary euthanasia (which performed on a patient against their will).

The euthanasia has not been carried out at the first knowledge of a lifethreatening illness, and reasonable medical help has been sought to cure or
at least slow down the terminal disease. I do not believe in giving up life the
minute a person is informed that he or she has a terminal illness. (This is a
common misconception spread by our critics.) Life is precious, you only pass
this way once, and is worth a fight. It is when the fight is clearly hopeless and
the agony, physical and mental, is unbearable that a final exit is an option.

The person leaves a note saying exactly why he or she is taking their life.
This statement in writing obviates the chance of subsequent
misunderstandings or blame. It also demonstrates that the departing person
is taking full responsibility for the action.

Euthanasia, even though contradicted by religious communities, still

has to be legalized for the benefit of the incurable and hopeless patients,
including their relatives. This legalization will improve further the system of
planning, performing, and recording of euthanasia, since it takes place
inevitably. Likely, the issue regarding the ratification of the Euthanasia Bill of
the Philippines is still on its formative period, in which there is no consistency
whether where the topic will go further in the future. With both sides reflected
in the preceding paragraphs, it is evident that, it could become a loud
argument, once again, especially between the State and the Church.

Euthanasia, in its many forms, is an inherent right that should not be

infringed upon through its not being legalized. Euthanasia refers to choosing
a dignified death, rather than one set for the individual, and in a slow and
painful manner at that. When palliative care is no longer an option and
treatment has failed time and again, the option to choose "the good death"
should remain open at all times. Despite slight possibilities in a lack of
responsible actions taken in the name of euthanasia, the act itself will always
be a personal choice, based on the amount of suffering one will allow oneself
to go through before one must give in. Euthanasia will always be in existence,
now it is merely a choice of making it "acceptable" or "unacceptable" as far
as the government is concerned. After all, whose life is it?