The request for reinterpretation of the criminal offense of murder sent to the Constitutional Court (KS), in order to enable euthanasia, puts this body in a dilemma whether to accept or reject the request, knowing that if it rejects it, it will condemn the man to a life full of suffering – in that what remains – and if he accepts it, he will create problems that are difficult to solve. So, whether good or bad, right or wrong, it seems that the request is easy to admit and hard to deny, at least on the face of it.

To allow this, an evolutionary and non-restrictive form of interpretation must be constructed, which must go beyond what was done to allow abortion due to rape (Sentence CC 4-19-IN/21); and in order to reject it, it is necessary to deny the autonomy of each individual to decide on his life, following the historical determinants of the state’s power over citizens that prohibit suicide.

But where the real difficulties arise are in the consequences for third parties that a recognized sentence with “generally binding effects” would entail, which must be structured in such a way as to configure the so-called “justifying reason” for the criminal and civil offense. sphere, which would eliminate the existence of a criminal offense and the possibility of seeking compensation or compensation for damage to the medical service; Therefore, it must contain an express permission to kill a human being by means of “help” who, due to some physical defect, cannot do it by his own means.

Furthermore, the judgment must regulate the case of health workers’ opposition to the practice of euthanasia: can they refuse the alleged “conscientious objection”? Or could the Court compel them through an “omission action”? Or would there be a criminal contempt of court if they do not comply with the penalties?

It seems that they can be called if they are from public health, but if it is private, is there still the possibility of seeking damages from the doctor or Health Center who refuses it?

In this case, it would be necessary to resort to the American judgments on wrongful life and wrongful birth (New Jersey Supreme Court, Gleitman v. Cosgrove), which originally denied compensation on the basis of the “paradox of non-existence”, with the argument that “life with obstacles (or even suffering) it cannot be compared to the utter emptiness of non-existence.”

And in such a controversial topic it sounds banal to remember that the private healthcare system is not free and that someone has to pay for the “service”, probably before providing it, moreover, the only possible result is the death of the patient, after which the collection of fees and costs could become cumbersome considering to the mandatory nature of the medical service.

The discussion is open, so the reader can take a stand for or against, deciding between what is supposedly easy or hard and what he believes is best for Ecuadorian society. (OR)