ABSTRACT
We have read with great interest the Reflections about euthanasia in Colombia. It has reminded us that the support to decriminalize euthanasia is usually based on ordinary arguments: an emotional appeal of someone else's pain, rejection of disproportionate therapies, and praise to the autonomy of the individual. All of the above are mentioned in the text. With the emotional argument of mitigating pain and suffering to accomplish a smooth and easy transit or the idea of love and feelings of human solidarity with the sufferer, empathy is the logical consequence ("I wouldn't want to go through that") and presume that what is appropriate and piety-deserving is giving the patient an efficient and immediate exit. The rejection we all have against therapeutic obstinacy (cause useless suffering because of failure to adapt the therapy to the patient's situation, prognosis and values) leads to extreme positions that present euthanasia as the only option to avoid and prevent such disproportionate treatments. Finally, this autonomist and individualistic argument, transforms the respect for the right to refuse therapy or choose among several options inherent to lex artis into submission to the patient's wish, imposing his/her will as the only healthcare criterion. Beyond these arguments, when the debate turns into radical positions, the rejection of euthanasia is frequently presented as a religious issue, a Jewish-Christian cultural atavism or a moral imposition in the name of beliefs alien to a secular society.