The Provincial Court of Administrative Appeals in Barcelona has granted a precautionary request and halted the planned euthanasia of N.C.R., a 23-year-old woman, which was scheduled for Friday, August 2, at the Sant Camil Residential Hospital in Sant Pere de Ribes, Barcelona. The organization representing the plaintiff says that the patient suffers from borderline personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder, conditions that have contributed to multiple suicide attempts.
In 2022 she experienced a spinal injury that left her mobility completely dependent in the legs. This development had led the Guarantee and Evaluation Commission to authorize the euthanasia, though the request was later challenged by the patient’s father through a legal representative who urged the court to suspend the procedure.
The appeal argued that the woman does not meet the criteria for euthanasia because she is not fully capable of making decisions, and it also noted that the patient has changed her mind about euthanasia several times in recent days. The advocacy group emphasized that these changes prompted the physician assigned to the procedure and the psychologist to withdraw from the case.
The group added to the court that, given the young age of the patient, the chances for recovery or improvement are significant. It pointed out that the obsessive-compulsive symptoms include recurrent and intrusive thoughts about death and suicidal ideation, suggesting that the euthanasia request could be more a symptom of the underlying condition than a final medical choice requiring appropriate treatment.
The court’s decision states that euthanasia was scheduled to be performed on August 2 and that it is appropriate to pause this action to consider the latent rights involved and the irreparable harm that could result. Consequently, the death procedure planned for that Friday is temporarily blocked.
The leader of the advocacy group explained that legalizing euthanasia opens the door to cases like this, where life remains to be lived, and argued that the line between euthanasia and homicide can be dangerously thin. The spokesperson warned that any broad application of euthanasia carries risks for multiple patients and stressed the need to focus on providing medical treatment that might improve the patient’s condition. The remarks also included a claim that euthanasia could be less costly than ongoing treatment in some circumstances.
By highlighting the emotional and medical complexity involved, the case underscores the ongoing debate about euthanasia in the country, especially regarding how best to protect vulnerable patients while respecting individual autonomy. It illustrates the careful balance courts must strike when rapidly changing medical opinions, patient capacity, and the availability of supportive therapies intersect in life-and-death decisions.