In the coming weeks, 34 Supreme Court magistrates will decide whether anyone can judicially intervene against the decision of an adult person who has medical approval to receive euthanasia. The Prosecutor's Office has already conveyed its position to the court: it believes that close family can do so as long as they have an "intense bond" with the affected person, not just a biological relationship. The response that the full Supreme Court eventually gives will set a precedent in a debate that has been open in the courts for a few months and has gained prominence especially with the case of Noelia Castillo, the young woman from Garraf who received assisted death at the end of March, after 20 months of judicial proceedings. The case that the Supreme Court will hear is another, that of Francesc: a 55-year-old man who, after three strokes and a heart attack, suffers serious sequelae in his mobility and speech. Since July 2024, his euthanasia has had judicial approval as well as medical approval and that of the Commission of Guarantee and Evaluation of Catalonia (CGAC), but it has been stalled by a judicial appeal from his father. In fact, his case is what motivated the resolution of the Superior Court of Justice (TSJC) in which the magistrates validated that a family can take an euthanasia approved by doctors to court. The Generalitat, which represents Francesc's interests, appealed against this resolution of the TSJC and, therefore, the Supreme Court will now review it after evaluating the arguments of the administration and those of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

Donald Trump picks up the gauntlet from the far-right in Spain and weighs in on the controversy over euthanasia for Noelia, the 25-year-old girl who last Thursday, after a long judicial battle, achieved assisted death. According to the New York Post, the American administration has opened an investigation into the case due to concerns that the Spanish system may have incurred "failures" in "matters of human rights".

Donald Trump picks up the gauntlet from the Spanish far-right and stirs controversy over the euthanasia of Noelia Castillo, the 25-year-old girl who last Thursday, after a long legal battle, obtained assisted death in a socio-health center in Sant Pere de Ribes. According to the New York Post publishes, the North American administration has opened an investigation into the case due to suspicions that Spain may have incurred "failures" in "human rights matters".

The verbs to live and to die are conjugated differently in people's lives. There are those who have an easy life and a difficult death; those who drag out a hard life but find a peaceful death. The lucky ones, for whom both life and death smile, and the unlucky ones, for whom living is very difficult, and dying too. In this last combination lies the experience of Noelia Castillo, the 25-year-old young woman who finally, on Thursday, was able to access euthanasia after almost two years of judicial ordeal, fueled by her father's opposition and the offensive of Abogados Cristianos (Christian Lawyers), a group much closer to doctrinal militancy and ultra-conservative activism than to Christian compassion.This case obliges us, first of all, to reflect on what happens when a legitimate moral belief, such as the sanctity or inviolability of human life, ceases to be an intimate conviction and becomes an ideology of combat in the public sphere. Every democratic society must respect people who, for religious or philosophical reasons, reject euthanasia for themselves. What it cannot accept, however, is that religious beliefs —or the groups that instrumentalize them— seek to impose their creed on everyone. Beliefs can be proposed, but not imposed. The judicial crusade against Noelia is nothing more than an attempt to forcibly prevail a certain moral vision, blessed by sectors of the extreme right and channeled through the courts to generate media noise, intimidate, and attack the government of Pedro Sánchez.The second issue that this case highlights is the application of euthanasia in the psychiatric field. Noelia had a mental health disorder, and the spinal cord injury she suffered was a consequence of a suicide attempt. It should be noted, however, that euthanasia was not granted to her solely for psychiatric reasons, but also for the irreversible physical injuries she presented, which caused her intolerable physical and psychological suffering. Even so, her mental pathology has been used to try to discredit her decision. The controversy in this area is intense. Opponents of euthanasia maintain that it is very difficult to know when psychological suffering is truly irremediable, to establish whether the desire to die is an autonomous decision or a symptom of the illness, and to ensure that euthanasia does not become, in practice, a form of medically facilitated suicide. Proponents, on the other hand, recall that severe and continuous mental suffering can also become devastating, refractory to treatments, and incompatible with a minimum threshold of quality of life. They argue, therefore, that excluding these patients from the outset is not an act of prudence, but a form of paternalism that discriminates against them, as if their pain were less important. And they argue that, with rigorous evaluations and an exhaustive exploration of decision-making capacity, the answer cannot be an automatic prohibition. In any case, to avoid concern, it should be kept in mind that not excluding these patients from the outset does not mean they should necessarily be admitted.

The sadism of belief. Noelia Castillo had to wait 601 days to make effective the euthanasia she had requested and had been authorized. A torment imposed by her father, who turned to the ultra-religious association Christian Lawyers to prevent his daughter from dying. That is to say, he did it in the name of faith, which like all beliefs is founded on an unprovable truth – the existence of God and the authority that emanates from him – a figure of domination that accompanies and conditions the human species with the identification with a superior being of which we have no objective evidence. An idea that, in the cultural diversity of the world, has not materialized in a single figure, but has generated countless beliefs, often in fierce rivalry with each other. So much so that Christianity itself – of which Catholics consider themselves genuine representatives – has materialized in a wide array of proposals in subtle competition. The diversity of the world is so great that it makes it difficult to accredit the Catholic claim to be the only authentic and universal one.

Noelia is already dead. And she is dead because the state has executed her. I believe in the state and in the fact that the monopoly of violence is in its hands. But not that of death. The death penalty disappeared from the functioning of Spanish institutions decades ago. In prisons, people commit suicide, but they are not euthanized. It is worth asking why in a hospital it should be any different. Noelia is dead because a committee has considered that her illness has no foreseeable solution and that the chronic and intolerable condition of her suffering justifies her death. And that the will to power, finally, to rest, takes precedence over the rest of her rights and duties. But even if we accepted the existence of the mythological little animals of will and autonomy, one would have to ask whether the state can obey someone's desire for death when that desire for death is a symptom of their illness. Noelia was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder, a disorder crossed by suicidal ideation. Noelia tried to commit suicide and, when that happened, the state's healthcare system prevented her from dying. Now that Noelia has explained, on Sonsoles Ónega's program, that she had always thought she wanted to "die beautiful", the state has allowed her to die. Beautiful.Euthanasia for mentally ill patients has been a debate for decades in Europe. “If chronic and unbearable physical suffering serves as an argument for requesting assisted death, why shouldn't psychological suffering serve?”, they say. “Why distinguish one pain from the other?”, they ask. And they add a paradox: some psychiatric patients, when they receive permission to die, decide not to. Indeed, in a 2015 study with Belgian patients – a country where euthanasia for psychological suffering is permitted – it happened like this: of all the patients who received permission to die, eight retracted, who knows if reconciled to life by having the possibility of dying peacefully at hand or by some twist of fate. But let's put it better: of all the patients who obtained permission to die, eight retracted; thirty-five died.I don't know if Spain is ready for Noelia to be the first name on a list, to become the practical precedent that death to alleviate psychological pain is possible and acceptable in the country. But above all, I don't know if it can afford it. Among those surveyed by the INE in 2023, more than 14% had recently shown symptoms of depression, another disorder crossed by suicidal ideation.The state cannot renounce caring for its sick. It is a renunciation of the future, of progress, of the machinery of medicine that advances every day. To give up a sick life definitively at 25 years old is to not understand the times we live in. To speak of chronic illnesses and irreparable pains in an era of daily pharmaceutical discoveries is to violate the principle of reality. To give death to a young woman of 25 years is not the exercise of an "ethical and democratic" society, as has been said. It is the society of care distributing the pill of death.

We hear on the radio about Noelia's case, the girl who by the time these lines are read will have received euthanasia. They have spoken to us about it. We know her father opposes it with the support of Christian Lawyers. But the difference is that, a few days ago, she gave an interview on television. Then "Noelia's case" goes from being general to specific. The girl talks about her father. The father said: grandmagrandma was hell." The case is not "just" a paraplegic girl who wants to die. It's a girl who was raped and, as a reaction, tried to commit suicide without succeeding.

These days we have learned of two news items that occurred in Catalonia, both very difficult to digest: the abuse of a child, allegedly caused by its parents, and the euthanasia that the woman who had requested it finally received and that her father had been preventing in the courts for almost two years. These are not just any two news items. And, precisely because they attract our attention, we cannot dwell on the morbid and must take them very seriously. And that means avoiding summary judgments without foundation and obvious statements of no interest.

When the euthanasia law was approved in June 2021, support for the initiative was very broad in Spanish society, which had experienced emblematic cases such as that of Ramon Sampedro (died in 1998), played by Javier Bardem in Alejandro Amenábar's film Mar adentro, or that of Ángel Hernández, the man who helped his wife, María José Carrasco, to die in 2019 and who was acquitted of the crime of aiding suicide once the law came into force. According to a CIS barometer from January 2021, 72% were in favor of the law and only 15% against.

It had been a long time since we had heard about Noelia's case in the media. A committee of experts authorized, almost two years ago, her right to assisted death due to her suffering. The father's legal battle, however, had prevented it until now. Two days before the euthanasia date, Sonsoles Ónega announced an interview with Noelia. She herself had requested to participate in the program.

The Constitutional Court has unanimously decided not to admit the latest attempt by the ultraconservative Catholic group Christian Lawyers to halt Noelia's euthanasia, which has been suspended since the summer of 2024 due to legal proceedings initiated by her father. The Constitutional Court ruled that no human rights had been violated during this process, and its decision does not close the last opportunity Noelia's father and Christian Lawyers had in the Spanish legal system to prevent the young woman's decision.

The Supreme Court has thwarted yet another attempt by the ultraconservative Catholic group Christian Lawyers to stop Noelia's euthanasia. The court did not overturn the request from this group of lawyers, who represent the affected woman's father. the latest resolution of the legal saga that has been dragging on since August 2024 And in which the High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) had already concluded that the 24-year-old woman met the requirements to be eligible for assisted dying. However, the Catalan court's ruling in September also recognized the right of a family member to exhaust all legal remedies to prevent the assisted dying of a relative. Taking advantage of this, Christian Lawyers and the young woman's father have unsuccessfully attempted to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. This Thursday, they warned that they will also appeal to the Constitutional Court in a renewed attempt to prevent the young woman from receiving assisted dying, and they reiterated that the precautionary measures currently on hold regarding the euthanasia procedure remain in place. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled against overturning the TSJC (High Court of Justice of Catalonia) decision that gave judicial approval to the authorization granted by the Catalan Guarantee and Evaluation Commission, the body responsible for assessing requests for euthanasia, which unanimously endorsed Noelia. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on technical grounds and without considering the arguments presented by the affected woman's father. Two lower courts had already upheld the decision.

The Supreme Court notes that there are already two judicial instances that have confirmed that the young woman meets all the legal requirements to access assisted death. It was first done by a court in Barcelona, however, He clarified that the assisted dying procedure could not be resumed until the sentence was final. and therefore, until those involved had exhausted all possible resources. In fact, an appeal by the father against this decision led to The second court ruling, this time from the TSJC, confirmed that Noelia meets all the legal requirements for euthanasia.

]]>

The court has ruled that Noelia has the right to euthanasia, but the 24-year-old has been waiting for this procedure for over a year. Her father wanted to halt the proceedings authorized by the Guarantee and Evaluation Commission of Catalonia in the courts —the body responsible for evaluating all euthanasia requests—, and has done so represented by Christian Lawyers, who a few weeks ago decided to take a further step: attempting to force a criminal case against seven of the experts on the commission that endorsed Noelia's right to die. Now, the Barcelona Court of Instruction No. 20 has accepted the lawsuit filed by the ultraconservative Catholic group against two of these members.

]]>

The Supreme Court will resolve the fundamental debate following various legal proceedings in which a family member attempts to stop the euthanasia of an adult who already has medical approval. In all the cases that have reached the courts, a question has arisen that was not foreseen in the 2021 euthanasia law: Is the family of an adult who has requested euthanasia entitled to prevent it through the courts?

]]>

More than a year later, Noelia must continue waiting for a court decision to qualify for a dignified death, even though the courts consider her entitled to it. The High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) issued a ruling this Friday rejecting the appeal filed by her father, represented by the ultra-Catholic group Advocats Cristians (Christian Lawyers), to halt the euthanasia procedure authorized by the Catalan Guarantee and Evaluation Commission, the body responsible for assessing requests. However, although it concludes that the case meets the requirements for a dignified death, the high court also recognizes the right of a family member to exhaust legal remedies to halt the dignified death of a relative, as it ruled in another case last April.

]]>

María Dolores Barrero exercised her right to die with dignity last February due to multiple system atrophy, which caused her great suffering. It is a rare and incurable disease very similar to Parkinson's, which affects movement, causes muscles to stiffen, and progresses very rapidly, leaving sufferers with a very limited life expectancy. Despite the fact that the euthanasia law came into effect four years ago, María encountered many barriers to obtaining assisted death and had to battle the lack of knowledge of the professionals at her primary healthcare center, located in a rural area of Huelva, Andalusia. "She had daily pain attacks that incapacitated her, she had to take morphine in increasingly higher doses, and her doctor didn't know how the legal procedure worked," recalls her son, Lucas Barrero, in a conversation with ARA.

]]> A macabre but interesting debate is underway in the United Kingdom, which is currently considering legalizing assisted dying for those who don't want to prolong their agony. The Labour government assures that if the measure is approved, companies providing this service will not be able to advertise. The initial instinct is to consider it just another instance of hypocrisy: if there are people who have decided to make one of the most complicated decisions imaginable, it would be good for them to know the available options.

]]>

If there are no setbacks, France will join the list of countries that have legalized euthanasia in the coming months. The National Assembly voted this Tuesday in favor of the "end-of-life law" by 305 votes in favor, 199 against, and 57 abstentions. After years of debate and political back-and-forth, there has been consensus among some parties for the country to adopt legislation on the matter, but not everything is done. For the law to become a reality, the text still needs to be voted on in the Senate—where there is a conservative majority that could still introduce amendments—and then returned to the Assembly for a final vote.

]]>

The eight months of legal proceedings that ultimately ruled in her favor were not enough for Noelia to invoke her right to a dignified death. She will still have to wait some time for euthanasia, which was scheduled to take place in August of last year, but was suspended due to the judicial intervention of her father, represented by the ultra-Catholic group Advocats Cristians. The same Barcelona court that ruled two months ago He ruled out stopping Noelia's euthanasia as her father requested, She has now clarified that in order to resume the assisted death procedure, she will have to wait for the final judgment.

]]>

At home, we received some shocking news. The son of an old friend wrote to explain that his father's Alzheimer's had progressed very rapidly and was nearing the end. Having said that, he explained that his father—a vital and responsible man—when he received his diagnosis, he wanted to make an advance directive in which he stated how he wanted to live and, if the conditions weren't met, how he wanted to die.

]]>