Agenda Profile: Lauri Laats

The Center Party faction expresses strong opposition to draft bill 604 SE in the form in which it is currently presented. The representative emphasizes that the solutions concern basic needs (resources, training, access to palliative care) and demands amendments before the law could, in their estimation, be adopted; if amendments are not made, they will not support the current version. The discussion concerning dignified care and the declaration of end-of-life wishes is based on both ethical and technical levels, where the priority is cooperation and practical improvements, not merely the implementation of the law. He refers to the need to clarify the provisions (e.g., the fixed-term declaration of end-of-life wishes and the change in the age limit) and emphasizes that unfulfilled amendment proposals provide grounds for voting against adoption.

The representative offers clear expertise in healthcare policy: he discusses the availability of palliative care options, the developmental challenges of home care, and the training needs of healthcare professionals. International sources (WHO, Eurostat, European Commission) and the observations of the National Audit Office are referenced, which provide a contextual background for the problems and resource needs. Knowledge of the structural deficiencies of the healthcare system is demonstrated, as is the need to clarify the ethical and practical aspects in end-of-life care legislation.

The speaker employs a deeply emotional yet fact-based style: they incorporate questions, emphasize the human right to dignified care, and frame the discussion within the context of ethical and practical deficiencies. Value-based arguments are raised (bioethics, dignity, religious perspectives), and systemic shortcomings are critically evaluated, while simultaneously demonstrating a willingness to provide relief through specific changes. The text is ultimately argumentative, not merely declarative.

The application references one detailed speech delivered on June 11, 2025, followed by brief confirmations regarding the vote ("Yes, I would like to vote"; "Please vote"). The third reading and the influencing of proposals are noted, but the data reveals a limited, illustrative list of activities—one primary speech and some missing details concerning other events.

The main opposition position is against the bill if it does not take into account the submitted amendments. They are prepared to vote against it until the amendments are addressed (e.g., the deadline for end-of-life declarations and the change in the age limit). The reasons for refusing to vote stem from deep-seated resource shortages and ethical/faith-based conflicts.

A willingness to cooperate with the coalition has been demonstrated through the proposed amendments, but disclosure is sometimes limited: the faction has submitted several corrections, yet there is no mention of the broader, non-political coordination related to them. Furthermore, reaching a final consensus remains secondary, as it depends on the involvement and support of other factions.

The specific emphasis is on the problems of regional inequality: the availability of palliative care options depends heavily on location—it is better in large cities, but often insufficient in rural areas and small municipalities. The central focus of the text is precisely on spatial (rural/countryside) access and the burden placed on families related to the inadequacies of the care and home care system.

The economic perspective emphasizes the resource scarcity within the healthcare system: there is a lack of sufficient financial support and training, which jeopardizes the quality of care provided. Reference is made to the State Audit Office’s recommendation to boost funding (citing, for instance, an additional 900 million) and it is stressed that without this supplementary financing, the problems will only deepen. The system is already fragile, relying heavily on families' financial contributions and emergency funds as it is.

The social themes focus on the dignity of life, incorporating the ethical and religious contexts surrounding end-of-life declarations of will, and ensuring terminal phase care for everyone, regardless of their place of residence. He/She highlights the contradictions inherent in religious thought models and emphasizes that the value of life is fundamental and should be protected by law; simultaneously, the question is raised of how to guarantee dignified care while balancing the burden placed upon the family.

The priority is the second reading of Bill 604 SE and the subsequent third reading, but only if the amendments proposed by the Centre Party are adopted (e.g., the deadline for the advance directive/end-of-life declaration and raising the age limit to 21). The representative states that if the amendments are not taken into account, they will be unable to support the law. The rationale behind the law's objectives and key amendments is linked to the expansion of palliative care options and the regulation of ethical aspects related to end-of-life wishes.