The TSJC validates that a family takes to court a euthanasia that already has medical approval.

BarcelonaThe High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) has issued its first ruling in the legal debate that in recent months has called into question the right to assisted dying. In the opinion of Catalonia's highest court, a patient's family may be entitled to bring a euthanasia procedure to court even if the applicant already has the approval of the committee of experts charged with studying and validating or rejecting these requests.

This Thursday's ruling, reported by SER Catalunya and contained in a ruling consulted by ARA, refers to the second of the cases that have reached the courts in the last year. The patient is a 54-year-old man, Francesc, who requested euthanasia after suffering several strokes. Once the Guarantee and Evaluation Commission of Catalonia (CGAC) had authorized the procedure, the patient's father asked the court to halt it, arguing that his right to life was at stake.

After months of precautionary suspension, A judge in Barcelona allowed euthanasia to go ahead, but appeals from the Prosecutor's Office and the patient's father led to the case being referred to the High Court of Justice (TSJC). The court is now returning the case to the judge for a trial. This will be the second time in Catalonia in a short period of time to decide whether a person can intervene in court to stop the euthanasia of a family member. The first was Noelia, 24 years old, in which the ruling determined that her father was not entitled to stop the process.

In the coming weeks, the High Court of Justice (TSJC) will review Noelia's ruling and could apply the same arguments as in Francesc's case. "It makes you think it will be overturned," laments Núria Terribas, vice president of the Bioethics Committee of Catalonia and director of the Víctor Grífols Foundation. However, an important difference between the two cases is that in Noelia's case, all the evidence has already been evaluated, and the judge ruled not only that her father did not have the right to intervene, but that the patient met all the requirements for euthanasia.

In contrast, in Francisco's case, the judge has so far only assessed the father's legitimacy to intercede, and the High Court of Justice (TSJC) is ordering her to assess all the evidence. In fact, the judges point out that their ruling does not imply that the family's requests must be accepted. They only rule, they say, on the parents' legitimacy to intervene judicially to request a halt to a euthanasia procedure.

Interceding for another's right to life

The two proceedings launched in recent months have opened the debate on whether a person is entitled to halt another person's euthanasia in court. In the legal field, this raises the question of whether a person can intervene in court to protect another person's fundamental right to life. According to the TSJC judges, the judicial legitimacy of parents cannot be "generally and indiscriminately ruled out" to exercise "a legitimate interest" in their children's continued life. In fact, they maintain that a patient's parents "may have a legitimate interest" in taking legal action to protect that right, "even if they do not hold that right to the life of another." They add that there could even be, "depending on the context, a legal obligation to act with that objective."

In this case, Francisco had expressly requested that his family and those close to him not be notified that he had requested assisted dying, and had also requested that the court rule that his relative was not entitled to reverse his decision. The arguments of the TSJC judges who ruled on the appeals also take into account that this interest of the parents may even contradict the wishes of the affected person, and they consider that, even so, the legitimacy of interceding remains valid. "This is a personal interest that may even conflict with preferences, in this case those of the son, without eliminating the survival of this autonomous value," they state.

Even if there is a family conflict

In Francisco's case, the TSJC judges believe the judge dismissed the father's appeal requesting a halt to assisted death too quickly, ordering her to evaluate the matter after a trial. They also criticize as "automatic" the consideration that "a father's legitimate interest in his child's life is measured by the number of hours they spend together, by the mere existence or lack thereof of cohabitation," or by having a good relationship or not. For the judges, however, "even in situations of prolonged family conflict, the essence of parental concern that justifies" the legitimacy to intervene judicially could remain.

In both Noelia's and Francisco's cases, the request to halt euthanasia was submitted by the parents, and the ruling always refers to this concept. However, Terribas warns that "the argument the court makes in this ruling could be extrapolated to other family members who can claim to look out for that person's well-being," such as a mother or brother. However, she argues that this is a very personal right that no one other than the person affected should be able to interfere with. "For me, no one has any say, no matter how much they love you," she concludes.