Euthanasia In Adult Minors With Terminal Diseases

Euthanasia in adult minors with terminal diseases

Euthanasia can be the end of suffering in cases of terminal diseases or that represents constant and unbearable suffering This is an issue that is very controversial because there are people to find from this procedure the main detractors of this is the Church but against position toThis are those who defend the right to decent death for all people euthanasia turnsIt establishes Constitutional Court in 2014 “The right to die with dignity is a fundamental right. This guarantee consists of two basic aspects on the one hand, human dignity and on the other, individual autonomy. Indeed, human dignity is an essential budget of the human being that allows him to reason about what is correct or not, but it is also indispensable for the enjoyment of the right to life. The right to die with dignity is an autonomous right, independent but related to life and other rights. It is not possible to consider decent death as a component of the right to autonomy, nor is it possible to understand it as a part of the right to life. Simply, it is a complex and autonomous fundamental right that enjoys all the characteristics and attributes of the other constitutional guarantees of that category. It is a complex right because it depends on very particular circumstances to verify it and autonomous while its violation is not a measure of other rights."This based on generalities, but focusing on the" adult minor ", their opinion that must be taken into account and valued in such a way that the coexistence and full realization of their fundamental rights are guaranteed.

Taking into account the above, in our social state of law, the patient’s consent is erected as an express manifestation of the constitutional principle that recognizes in him a reasonable being, endowed with understanding that makes possible the realization of his freedom, since it is his ‘reason’The only one that can validly determine, prior information on the characteristics and possible consequences of a certain medical treatment, whether it accepts it or not, a decision that will be legitimate and constitutional provided that it comes from an individual fully capable and that with it it does not breach with theObligation that you have to provide yourself with the integral care that your person requires, or with the duty not to violate with your decisions damage to third parties or the community, but from what age are capacities identified?

Well, the ability of the least adult can be recognized to a lesser or greater degree as it is in one or another stage of life, more or less close to the limit established by law from which it is presumed, and is related tothe complexity of the issues for which it is required and with the degree of evolution of the subject individually considered;That in Colombia, euthanasia is adult minors is regulated in resolution 825 of 2018 of the Ministry of Health and Social Protection the procedure to make effective the right to die with dignity of children and adolescents, that is, it dictates which are what areThe rules for euthanasia in minors. The document reports that this is a decision that children over 12 years old may have and if we compare with other countries the minor in question has an exceptional neuro-cognitive and psychological development can be considered capable since the age of 6 in countries such as Belgium andHolland;This has been allowed for years, which makes them pioneers.

But if it is considered that the minor does not have the capacities, it is legitimate that parents and the State can take certain measures in favor of minors, even against the apparent will of the latter, since it is considered that they are not yet yethave acquired sufficient independence of criteria.

And in relation to the ability to make decisions of a minor adult on issues related to physical integrity, health institutions responsible for the child’s medical care must fulfill their obligations giving priority to the defense and protection of the right to the right to thepatient’s life. But there are cases in which, for example, there is the negative of the young man to receive a treatment that is recommended as urgent and necessary given the seriousness of his state, it would be a case closely related to euthanasia in an adult minor, in what The youngest adult who decides for his own will to host a certain religion and fulfill the precepts that she imposes him, has the right to fulfill the moral obligations he assumed; However, if such precepts interfere decisions about their health and physical integrity, even affecting their life expectations, it will be taken into account if and only if it is valid as a consent of a fully capable patient that “it is erected as an express manifestation of the Constitutional principle that recognizes in him a reasonable being, endowed with understanding that makes possible the realization of his freedom, since it is his ‘reason’ that can validly determine, prior information on the characteristics and possible consequences of a certain medical treatment, if Accept or not, a decision that will be legitimate and constitutional as long as it comes from an individual fully capable and that with it does not breach with the obligation it has to provide yourself with the integral care that your person requires, or with the duty not to violate With its decisions damage to third parties or the community ”(Constitutional Court, T-474-96).

Starting from the consent of a minor adult patient, we conceive that these patients enjoy a relative capacity, which, sometimes this is not enough to opt for an alternative that makes their life seriously danger, because it cannot be presumed that it isThe product of his own and autonomous reflection, guided only for his reason and understanding, which is why the decisions that have to do with their health, that compromise their life, will be entitled, not to decide for themselves, but to participate inThe decisions that have to do with your health and with the medical treatments that are recommended, freely expressing your opinion, since it is an issue that directly affects it, an opinion that must be taken into account and valued in such a way that it is guaranteedthe coexistence and full realization of their fundamental rights. Given its status as a minor, in case of contradiction between the decisions that the minor intends to adopt in the development of his right to religious freedom and those emanant by his parents, aimed at safeguarding his fundamental right to life, the second ones will prevail , whose effective realization will be responsible for the State.

However, this does not mean that parents can take, on behalf of their child, any medical decision related to the child, because the child is not owned by his parents but that he is already a developing freedom and autonomy, whichIt then has constitutional protection.

Taking into account the above, in our social state of law, the patient’s consent is erected as an express manifestation of the constitutional principle that recognizes in him a reasonable being, endowed with understanding that makes possible the realization of his freedom, since it is his ‘reason’ The only one that can validly determine, prior information on the characteristics and possible consequences of a certain medical treatment, whether it accepts it or not, a decision that will be legitimate and constitutional provided that it comes from an individual fully capable and that with it it does not breach with the Obligation that you have to provide yourself with the integral care that your person requires, or with the duty not to violate with your decisions damage to third parties or the community.

Something that is closely related to what happens in the case of euthanasia in adult minors;For example, in Belgium the assisted death, it was possible thanks to the modification of the Belgian Euthanasia Law, in force since 2002, but that since 2014 allows doctors to apply lethal injections to children who suffer from terminal diseases, provided that theyrequest and also have the consent of their parents. The child who requests it must do so in writing and is also examined by children. While supporters to this law positively describe that a child is not forced to suffer against their will, their opponents allege that they are not prepared, at a young age, to make the decision to die.

Holland was the first European country to legalize euthanasia. The law entered into force in April 2002 although this practice was tolerated since 1993. The requirements are very strict: the patient must reside in the Netherlands. Euthanasia or suicide aid request must be repeated, voluntary and product of reflection. The sufferings must be intolerable and without a view to improvement. The patient must have been informed of the situation he faces. The doctor who will apply euthanasia is obliged to consult the case with a partner or two in the event that the suffering is psychological, which has to issue the corresponding report.

In fact, there are cases in which the minors have attended this procedure two children, only 9 and 11 years old, the third is 17 years old these cases are reported in Belgium in Holland there was an unprecedented case a 17 -victim young womanof sexual abuse years he asked for the procedure and he was denied decided to stop eating until they died of starvation.

Starting from the consent of a minor adult patient, we conceive that these patients enjoy a relative capacity, which, sometimes this is not enough to opt for an alternative that makes their life seriously danger, because it cannot be presumed that it isThe product of their own and autonomous reflection, guided only by their reason and understanding, which is why decisions that have to do with their health, that compromise their life, must be shared with their parents or representatives who have the right and theduty to participate in them.

Taking into account the aforementioned, we can conclude on this subject and making analogy in the Judgment T -474 -1996, taking into account the freedom of worship and scope of the ability of the least adult, the recognition that the legislator les the legislator will be valid He made the child adult to determine the moral order guidelines that will guide his own destiny, allowing him implies attempting against its integrity, against that of third parties or against that of the community in general; himself refers to the relative capacity as we have mentioned above since the child is recognized must be complemented and perfected, until fully became full, with the exercise by the parents or representatives of the law-of to be Recognize, to guide and guide your children or represented in the exercise of their rights, ‘in accordance with the evolution of their faculties’. It is about what could be called a shared capacity, since it cannot simply ignore the opinions of the adult minor, adopting decisions that would have to be imposed by force, maybe transgressing other rights of it;If contradiction is presented between the decisions made by the minor, that endanger their fundamental right to life, and the decisions of their parents to preserve it, it corresponds to the State, to guarantee the primacy of the fundamental right to the life of the minor and it isWhere we entered to ask ourselves. The exercise of parental rights allows parents to guide and thus participate in the decisions of their minor adult children?

The parental authority refers to the legal relations of the person’s authority, she defines himself as the set of rights that the laws attribute to parents about non -emancipated children, to facilitate the fulfillment of the duties that the duties thatThe law imposes them. By their nature, parental rights is made up of joint powers of parents that allow themThey agree and, with some limitations to the right to administer and enjoy the usufruct of the goods they have. As it is not as soon as they are the complement of the duties that parents have to fulfill, in no way can they be confused with each other.

That is, the rights that arise from parental rights are instrumental rights, whose exercise, solely and exclusively restricted to its holders, will only be legitimate to the extent that it serves the achievement of the minor’s well -being. This is how the parental authority does notIt can translate into decisions that violate or transgress the fundamental rights of the minor such as the fundamental right to die with dignity, as long as this is called as capable of exercising this request.