In the National Assembly, with 103 votes in favor and none against, on May 4, 2023, the project of the Organic Law on Mental Health was approved – which also has the support of the executive branch – to establish a legal framework that promotes, regulates and guarantees the full realization of people’s rights to mental health , according to the model of comprehensive care. It is stated that it is necessary to guarantee mental health services throughout the health system, either in primary health centers or in hospital units, not only in specialized hospitals.

A mental health network was created with public and private institutions to guarantee care for the most vulnerable, such as people with severe disabilities and the homeless, so that they have access to a quality life.

Did the members of parliament conscientiously vote for that law? I want to believe that it is, despite the fact that, in other matters and circumstances, prioritizing principles and reaching consensus has not been demonstrated in their actions.

At the time the mental health bill was being debated, differences regarding the preparation of the report on the impeachment trial of President Lasso led to an outburst of violence between MPs and support staff, in the spaces between the seats, which forced the action of the legislative escort.

Legislators who opposed the Government questioned whether the group of advisers in charge of preparing the report for the impeachment proceedings included an expert who had previously opposed the trial. The deficiency was a “lack of suitability” to give an unbiased opinion.

What to think about the members of the assembly who should not only give their opinion, but also vote for the removal or non-removal of Las, who preempted their opinion and threatened those who might think or act differently? There is an announcement of the application of indigenous judicial sanctions – ice baths, nettles, among others – to members of the Pachakutik assembly who do not vote for the removal of Lasso, and taking to the streets if this does not happen.

It is assumed that those who must vote on the responsibilities of those on trial must, in order to do so, consider the evidence or the evidence and support given to it, and only thus motivate their vote. Otherwise, there is no evaluation, only alignment and sum of votes.

An extensive report prepared by a group of advisers, which was submitted for consideration and voting by members of the Supervisory Board, its president, who concluded that there would be no embezzlement of Lasso, was rejected, as he had already been warned by the previous agreement of those who voted in this way , the law does not assume an alternative report. At the plenary session of the Assembly, a report that was not approved by the Supervisory Commission is received. Can the plenary session by cumulation of votes, if applicable, politically decide that there is embezzlement, even though this is not the conclusion of the report?

I ask: can a common solution be assumed, giving priority to the urgent needs of Ecuador, as was the case with the Mental Health Law? (OR)