2023-09-13 15:12:23
The Constitutional Court has rejected this Wednesday the appeal presented by the PP against the euthanasia law, according to sources from the guarantee court. The challenge was formalized in June 2021, with the essential argument that this law violates the right to life, and therefore should be declared unconstitutional. The decision was adopted by nine votes to two, those of the conservative magistrates Enrique Arnaldo and Concepción Espejel.
In substance, the challenge coincided with the one already presented by Vox, which was rejected by the court last March. However, the PP affected singular aspects, such as the possibility that not only natural persons but also legal persons and institutions could object and not apply the provisions of said law, to which the ruling responded negatively, considering that said objection can only be formulate it, where appropriate, health professionals.
The popular parliamentary group maintained that the experts have not been listened to and that the law has been approved without the input of the opposition, with the absence of technical, legal, medical and bioethical reports. It is added that there has been no public hearing, nor a true social demand calling for this law. The alternative that the popular people then offered was their own palliative care law.
In its March ruling rejecting Vox’s appeal, the guarantee body estimated that the law does not contain any article that could be declared unconstitutional. The ultra party, in turn, stated in its appeal that it is a regulation that does not offer minimum guarantees of legal security. In this sense, he objected to an alleged lack of judicial intervention in the procedures contemplated by the law, and stressed that the presence of a judge exists, for example, in other types of processes, such as those that can lead to the detention of a person for an alleged mental illness. The Constitutional Court responded to these arguments by ensuring that the norm offers a consistent system of guarantees, and contradicted Vox’s theses by stating that the role of a judge to limit certain fundamental rights cannot be equated with “the conscious, voluntary and free request to access.” to euthanasia once “the legal conditions have been met.”
What affects the most is what happens closest. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
#Constitutional #Court #rejects #PPs #appeal #euthanasia #law #Spain