Agenda Profile: Lauri Laats

The Centre Party is clearly opposed to Bill 604 SE in the context of the third reading; it stresses that the deficiencies and financing issues within the healthcare system must be addressed before the legalization of end-of-life declarations. It asserts that the priority must be ensuring quality and timely medical care, and developing palliative and home care services, rather than legalizing end-of-life legal decisions. It maintains that the end-of-life declaration bill is not the correct answer to the healthcare crisis; it emphasizes the necessity of a value-based and service-centered approach.

It highlights the crisis in the healthcare system and refers to the 2022 review by the National Audit Office and the 2023 report by the European Commission, along with the 12.9% of the population who forgo healthcare, using these points as evidence regarding funding and access points. It employs terms such as facilitating treatment, out-of-pocket costs, palliative care, and home care, and stresses the issues of waiting times and pricing. The primary focus is on the connection between healthcare system reform and funding deficiencies, rather than merely guiding ethical debates.

The focus is on rapid, emotional, and ethically value-driven discourse, combining fact-based argumentation with moral persuasion. It utilizes rhetorical questions and cultivates the universal value of longevity and a dignified life. The text is formal yet emotional, expressing concern over systemic shortcomings.

The date indicated for the sole appearance is 2025-06-18; it refers to previous reports by the National Audit Office (Riigikontroll) and the European Commission, as well as discussions during the third reading, but does not present a comprehensive schedule of activities or regularity; the data suggests a single, active public appearance in this context.

The main feature is the expression of strong opposition to Bill 604 SE. The criticism focuses on a shift in priorities—namely, that instead of addressing the lack of healthcare system reforms, the focus is on legalizing end-of-life declarations. It criticizes the bill as the wrong response to current problems and emphasizes an uncompromising stance in contrast to actual healthcare improvements.

The speech points to cooperation with colleague Irja Lutsar, noting they are "of one mind," but it doesn't demonstrate significant multilateralism or broader coalition cooperation. It shows party unity and a clear stance, but only minimally expresses a desire to accept broad-based compromises.

State/national level; there are no regional or local centers and projects; the focus is on the healthcare system and national policy.

It emphasizes that problems with healthcare system financing restrict service provision and jeopardize access; it stresses the necessity of directing resources primarily toward improving the quality and accessibility of care, yet fails to propose specific macroeconomic solutions or budgetary allocations. It acknowledges cost implications and a potential increase in expenditure should the bill be enacted, and underscores a necessary shift in financing priorities for healthcare improvement.

It advocates for ensuring the value of life and a dignified lifespan, emphasizing the accessibility of palliative and home care. While referencing religious views as part of the discussion, the focus remains on solutions within the healthcare system. The legalization of end-of-life declarations is viewed as the wrong solution to current social challenges.

The primary priority is the improvement of the healthcare system and treatment options, along with broader financing for palliative care and home care. Regarding the submission and third reading of Bill 604 SE, it is acceptable, but only from the standpoint of the opposition. The consideration of legislation concerning end-of-life declarations of will is offered as an alternative, should the primary focus shift away from these priorities. It is emphasized that the recommended alternative would be the deliberation of the matter, not the actual adoption of the law. The ultimate goal is to ensure people's right to quality treatment and a dignified life.