The Prosecutor's Office defends that a relative can appeal the euthanasia of an adult only if there is an "intense bond".

BarcelonaIn 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.

Specifically, the Supreme Court's Public Prosecutor's Office considers that "relatives within the strictest family sphere" must be able to appeal the medical authorization for a patient's euthanasia. However, it specifies that a biological or family relationship is not enough, but rather that "an intense affective bond present at the time of the action" is required for someone to intervene. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's Public Prosecutor's Office report takes into account the possibility of a conflict of interest, which would lead to the loss of the right to intervene: for example, if the relative benefits from aid that the patient requesting euthanasia receives.They must be able to be reviewed

The report from the public prosecutor's office also refers to associations opposed to assisted death, such as Abogados Cristianos, which spearheaded the case of Noelia Castillo, representing her father to try to prevent her from accessing euthanasia. The Supreme Prosecutor's Office believes they are not authorized to challenge euthanasia authorizations or denials "because these decisions do not affect or disrupt" their activities.However, the public prosecutor refers to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court to consider that authorizations and denials of euthanasia must be subject to judicial review. In fact, the euthanasia law already provided that the affected person could appeal if the administration denied their request. What had not been foreseen is that a third person could intervene if the patient's request was endorsed.