A judge in Medellín asked the Colombian Institute of Pain (Incodol) to You must euthanize Martha Sepúlveda, who had scheduled said procedure on October 10 at 7:00 a.m., and that it was canceled a few weeks ago because it was considered that the woman did not meet the requirements.
For what he gave 48 hours for the entity to agree with Martha Sepúlveda the day and time the procedure will be performed, which is his will for months and requested when suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (disease that is incurable and degenerative). It should be noted that it is a ruling that can be challenged in three days.
According to information obtained by CNN, the ruling indicates that “Indocol has violated Mrs. Martha Liria Sepúlveda Campo”, for which it ordered him to “comply with the provisions of the Interdisciplinary Scientific Committee to die with dignity, in a certificate issued on August 6 of this year “and in which it was indicated that the woman met the requirements to” exercise her right to die with dignity through euthanasia “
Why did you change your mind in the case of Martha Sepúlveda?
The euthanasia of Martha Sepúlveda then received the green light for being a patient with “advanced incurable disease”, “physical and / or psychological symptoms that generate suffering” and “capacity for decision-making,” said the Colombian Institute of Pain (INCODOL ), in charge of the procedure.
But on Friday, October 8, a brief document that arrived under his door announced the cancellation of euthanasia by “unanimous” determination of the medical committee that had previously approved it.
In a second communication, Incodol justified the decision in an “updated concept of the state of health and evolution” of Martha.
The aforementioned Caracol report on the case, which was replicated in international and local media, evidenced “greater functionality than that reported by the patient and her relatives,” according to the institute’s text released by her relatives.
After viewing the images, the committee concluded that “the patient has a high probability of life expectancy greater than six months, therefore she does not meet the termination criteria.”
Lawyer Camila Jaramillo questioned the change in the decision: “We do not know why they evaluated in August with some criteria and in October with others, knowing that the Court’s ruling is firm,” he said.
Questioned by the AFP, a person in charge of the Ministry of Health assured that the sentence that extended access to euthanasia to non-terminal patients has no “legal effects” for now because “the Constitutional Court has not yet notified the Ministry of the ruling,” which does not know the full text.
Morena seeks to decriminalize active euthanasia in CDMX
Spain becomes the seventh country to approve euthanasia; here I detail them
Euthanasia: In which countries of the world is it legal?