The case of Noelia, a 24-year-old woman with a spinal cord injury resulting from a suicide attempt, reaches its conclusion today after a protracted legal battle and intense bioethical debate. The European Court of Human Rights has rejected the interim measures requested by her father to halt the proceedings, thus upholding the continuation of the process. With the euthanasia scheduled for this afternoon, the situation reopens questions about the application of this practice in patients with mental disorders, the assessment of their capacity to make decisions, and the limits of current legislation.

The story of Noelia,  a 24-year-old woman  with a spinal cord injury resulting from a suicide attempt in 2022 following bouts of depression, reaches a crucial point today. This afternoon, March 26, 2026, at 6:00 PM, the  euthanasia procedure  she first requested in 2024 is scheduled to be carried out, in a case that has sparked intense legal, medical, and ethical debate. Noelia lives in a care facility and uses a wheelchair.

Her father, represented by the organization Christian Lawyers, tried until the very last moment to stop the process. To this end,  he filed for interim measures  before the Strasbourg Court, after a previous appeal had managed to temporarily halt the euthanasia at an earlier stage of the proceedings.

Meanwhile, legal services requested that the criminal court order the young woman to undergo psychological and psychiatric evaluation and treatment before authorizing an irreversible decision. In their view, the case highlights “a structural problem in the legislation”: the lack of mandatory protocols for patients with mental illness before they access euthanasia.

They argue that Noelia had a recognized disability of 67% due to a mental disorder before her suicide attempt. After the incident that left her wheelchair-bound, that level increased to 74%, which—they claim—indicates that the origin of her suffering is fundamentally psychiatric. “We are facing a very serious legal loophole: suicide is being offered without any attempt at treatment,” they maintain.

Background

It should be remembered that in August 2024 the young woman was about to receive euthanasia, but her father filed an appeal and the judge provisionally stopped it, considering that she did not meet the legal requirements to request it, since her health condition improves with treatment and her pain can be controlled with medication.

On March 11, the court authorized euthanasia for the young woman, whose request had previously been rejected by a ruling that upheld her father’s opposition. This new ruling reversed the previous decision and recognized her right to assisted dying.

According to the Barcelona Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, the woman meets the requirements established by law to receive the requested assisted dying service; her decision is  “firm, free and autonomous”  and she is in a situation of “euthanasia context”.

The Generalitat’s legal services assert that the father is not entitled to intervene in this case, since the young woman  does not have limited capacity  and does not live with him. Furthermore, they believe he is acting due to an “ideological difference.”

The father filed allegations on March 12, arguing that the young woman suffers from diagnosed mental illnesses that affect her ability to make decisions.

Bioethical assessment

Respect for the autonomy of psychiatric patients implies the need for a careful assessment of their capacity to make non-malefic decisions, especially when these decisions have irreversible consequences. The application of euthanasia to these patients can be interpreted as a consequence of the failure of the healthcare system that promotes it. Instead of receiving the clinical care and support they need, they are offered assisted suicide or euthanasia, compromising the principles of medicine, whose objective is to cure, palliate, prevent, and care.

As Dr. Mariano Casado Blanco previously pointed out   in a report published in our Observatory, “different studies have shown that the desire to die expressed by a patient at a given moment does not remain stable over time and is directly related to other variables that can be treated promptly and satisfactorily, avoiding impulsive behaviors.”

Making a firm, free, and autonomous decision, as the prosecution asserts in this case, does not necessarily imply that it must be supported. A person can choose firmly, freely, and autonomously to destroy their own life or the lives of others, or to cause harm in various ways, which highlights the need to establish limits on the exercise of their freedom.

The patient who asks to die, in many cases, what they truly need is care, comfort, companionship, and treatment for their suffering. Causing their death can constitute a form of abandonment that is difficult to justify, unbecoming of a civilization that should be especially concerned for its most vulnerable members.

Finally, if euthanasia is carried out, it will be just another symptom of the decline of a civilization that refuses to care for the weak and chooses to eliminate them.

Julio Tudela. Ester Bosch. Bioethics Observatory. Institute of Life Sciences. Catholic University of Valencia