The Meaning of Human Pain and the Question of Euthanasia in Mexico

September 12, 2025
Author: Juan Manuel Palomares Cantero
Versión en español

Introduction

Speaking of euthanasia in Mexico does not only mean speaking of laws or medical protocols, but of concrete lives marked by pain, fragility, and the search for meaning. Behind every public debate, there are faces and names that embody the fatigue of prolonged illness and the longing to be heard in their suffering. These stories move society, for they reveal that the question of euthanasia does not arise from theory, but from the extreme experience of those who face the vulnerability of existence day after day.

The case of Samara Martínez¹ is one such testimony that has resonated beyond the clinical setting. Her struggle with renal failure, repeated transplant failures, and daily dependence on long hours of dialysis has given visibility to a harsh reality silently shared by many. Through her public campaign, Samara has promoted a movement seeking to legalize euthanasia, generating both solidarity and resistance. Her voice embodies the weight of suffering but also the urgency for society to seriously address the meaning of life in illness and proximity to death².

Bioethics presents itself as a necessary horizon for this dialogue—not to impose definitive answers but to illuminate the complexity of human experience in its most fragile moments. Reflecting through bioethics means asking what it means to care for, accompany, and respect life when threatened by persistent suffering. It also implies recognizing that human dignity is not lost in illness, and that true compassion cannot be confused with eliminating life. From this perspective, the euthanasia debate becomes an invitation to think about justice, solidarity, and responsibility as a society toward those facing the limits of suffering.

Euthanasia in the Mexican Context

Samara Martínez’s personal story, courageously shared on social media and in the press, gave rise to the citizens’ initiative Ley Trasciende³, aimed at promoting euthanasia as a legal option in Mexico. The proposal has sparked notable social impact, gaining support in diverse sectors, while also generating criticism and resistance that reflect the controversy surrounding the issue.

Legally, Mexico has made progress in regulating palliative care and advance directives, with state laws that allow patients to refuse disproportionate or futile treatments. However, active euthanasia and assisted suicide remain outside the legal framework. Their inclusion would represent a profound shift in how life and dignity are understood in a country where cultural and religious traditions affirm the sanctity of life. Thus, the discussion transcends the legal domain and becomes an ethical and cultural inquiry that challenges society as a whole.

Adding to this is a structural inequality in access to healthcare. Thousands of patients lack continuous treatment, palliative care, or psychological support. According to the Atlas of Palliative Care in Latin America 2020, only 7% of those who need it in the region actually receive it⁴. This reveals that the problem is not isolated but systemic, and that before opening the door to euthanasia, the ethical priority should be to ensure universal and dignified access to such care.

Presenting euthanasia as an alternative risks obscuring the true urgency: ensuring social justice, equitable healthcare, and a robust culture of care. The central question, therefore, is not whether to legalize euthanasia, but whether society is willing to create the conditions that allow every person to live and die with dignity—without reducing their worth to freedom from suffering or access to resources⁵.

Bioethics as a Framework for Analysis

In this debate, bioethics emerges as a meeting ground between human suffering and collective responsibility. It goes beyond determining whether a practice should be permitted or prohibited, engaging instead with a deeper question: What does it mean to respect life and accompany those who suffer?

Its value lies in providing criteria that guide decisions in contexts of vulnerability, reminding us that suffering cannot be viewed only through technical or legal lenses, but through the dignity of the person enduring it. This perspective is rooted in a clear conviction: human dignity is not lost in illness or dependence. Even in fragility, the person retains value—and this certainty obliges us to seek alternatives that protect and accompany without reducing life to a utilitarian calculation. From this standpoint, bioethics orients reflection toward practices that uphold dignity—such as comprehensive palliative care, psychological support, and family accompaniment—rather than the temptation to resolve suffering by suppressing life.

Furthermore, bioethics fosters dialogue with justice and solidarity. It is not enough to uphold individual autonomy; it is necessary to guarantee social and healthcare conditions that make decisions truly free, rather than outcomes of neglect⁶. A society that does not provide universal access to healthcare cannot speak of freedom in choosing death. Thus, bioethics elevates the debate, emphasizing that true compassion means walking alongside suffering with responsibility and care while affirming the value of life.

Human Dignity, Corporeality, and Respect for Life

The reflection on euthanasia cannot be separated from the understanding of human dignity. Dignity does not depend on health status, functional autonomy, or social productivity—it accompanies the person throughout life, even in illness or extreme vulnerability. Recognizing dignity means affirming that every life deserves care and respect, regardless of its limitations.

The body, far from being a mere biological support, is essential to personal identity. Through corporeality, each human being relates, works, loves, and suffers. Reducing the body to an instrument risks undermining the integral understanding of humanity. To care for corporeality is not to prolong life at all costs, but to recognize it as the locus of dignity and personal history. This perspective affirms that respect for physical life is an irrenounceable ethical duty, forming the foundation of all human experience.

Thus, directly disposing of life—as in euthanasia—raises a profound ethical objection. The true challenge is not to eliminate life when it becomes fragile, but to generate social, medical, and familial conditions that allow the person to live their final moments with accompaniment and meaning⁷. Respect for life in its vulnerability is not a burden but the clearest expression of our shared humanity. As Viktor Frankl once said, “Life retains its meaning under any circumstance, even in the face of the most extreme suffering. ⁸.

Conclusions

The euthanasia debate in Mexico reveals the tension between human suffering and the need for ethical responses adequate to such a reality. The testimony of Samara Martínez, in courageously making her suffering visible, has placed at the center of public conversation a question that cannot be ignored: How do we accompany life in its most fragile moments?

Bioethical reflection teaches us that human dignity does not disappear in illness and that true compassion is not the elimination of life, but the creation of conditions that allow life to be lived with support and care until the end. Corporeality, as the space where a person loves, suffers, and relates, deserves respect and protection—even when marked by weakness or decline.

Therefore, rather than legalizing the suppression of life, the challenge is to build a society that guarantees justice, equity, and solidarity. A society capable of supporting the most vulnerable will also be one that recognizes in every person a value that never diminishes. The case of Samara should be seen as an urgent call not to abandon those who suffer, but to strengthen paths of care and accompaniment that affirm life under all circumstances. As Cicely Saunders taught, “We cannot always add days to life, but we can always add life to days.” ⁹.

Juan Manuel Palomares Cantero is a lawyer with a Master’s and Doctorate in Bioethics from Universidad Anáhuac, Mexico. He served as Director of Human Resources, and later as Director and General Coordinator at the Faculty of Bioethics. He is currently a researcher at the Academic Directorate of Integral Education at the same university. He is a member of the National Mexican Academy of Bioethics and the Latin American and Caribbean Federation of Bioethics Institutions.This article was assisted in its drafting by the use of ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence tool developed by OpenAI. 

The opinions expressed in this blog are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and do not necessarily represent a unanimous view of the seminars, nor do they reflect an official position of CADEBI. We value and encourage any comments, responses, or constructive criticism you may wish to share.