Last December a security guard barricaded himself inside a facility after firing at three colleagues and a Mossos d’Esquadra officer. Eugen Sabau, the individual involved, sought to have euthanasia procedures begin, challenging the charges brought against him by the injured officer who requested that the court direct the hospital to halt any ongoing proceedings.
Legal sources indicate that Sabau, who was taken to the Terrassa Prison Hospital, was left with irreversible spinal cord injury after the shooting. He reportedly asked the medical team attending him to initiate euthanasia protocols, underscoring the severity of his pain and the impact of his injuries on his daily life. The case is being handled under the supervision of Barcelona’s fifth investigative court, with Sabau awaiting trial for the December incidents that included the shooting of three colleagues at the Securitas offices in Tarragona and a district police agent who attempted to intervene during his flight, followed by a confrontation at a rural property in Riudoms.
According to Cadena Ser, the Terrassa Prison Hospital informed the court that Sabau was preparing to implement the necessary protocols after the 46-year-old prisoner requested euthanasia amid the spinal cord damage and intense pain tied to his addiction history. The request has drawn scrutiny from the legal representatives and authorities involved, who are weighing medical possibilities against legal safeguards.
Representing the injured Mossos d’Esquadra officer, attorney José Antonio Bitos of the USPAC union has filed a brief requesting an immediate order to the court. The Terrassa Prison Hospital is urged to suspend any action aimed at carrying out euthanasia until the court makes a decision on the matter. This procedural pause is intended to ensure due process and protect the rights of all parties involved during a highly charged moment in the criminal process.
“I Can’t Avoid Judgment”
In a letter obtained by Efe, the lawyer argues that Terrassa Hospital cannot determine a researcher’s life or any definitive outcome without court involvement. The communication asserts that the solution cannot rest with a medical facility alone and that the court must determine whether euthanasia should be considered as part of the legal process. The contention highlights the tension between medical ethics and judicial oversight in cases where a prisoner’s life is at stake.
The attorney argues that a murderer or a defendant who faces conviction should not be allowed to escape accountability through euthanasia. Instead, it is proposed that the court adopt all necessary safeguards to prevent any premature decision that would bypass the judicial process. This perspective emphasizes that life-saving or end-of-life decisions should be rooted in legal judgments and procedural fairness rather than ad hoc medical determinations.
From the vantage point of the special prosecutor’s office, the aim of pre-trial detention is to bring the investigated or accused individual to justice. Extending euthanasia as a means to end a case prematurely would be inappropriate and contradictory to the role of the judiciary in ensuring accountability and due process. The prosecutor’s office stresses that any decision to euthanize must align with the legal framework and the court’s responsibilities in safeguarding the rights of victims and the accused alike.
Additional considerations include the court’s obligation to protect the life and rights of the detainee during the investigative phase, while not losing sight of the victims’ rights and the necessity of an impartial assessment of the facts. The overarching aim remains a fair trial that scrutinizes the merits of the case and ensures that justice is administered with due regard for public safety, legal standards, and ethical boundaries in medical practice.