Spain’s Top Court Says 25-Year-Old Woman Paralyzed After Attempted Suicide Now Qualifies for Assisted Suicide

Media outlets report that Spain’s top court has approved assisted suicide for a woman who became paralyzed after attempting suicide.

Noelia, 25, from Barcelona, attempted suicide multiple times before an October 2022 attempt left her paralyzed and in chronic pain. Two years later, she received approval for assisted suicide under Spain’s euthanasia policies.

Noelia’s father asked the Spanish court to block his daughter’s death, arguing that she suffers from a personality disorder that impairs her judgment and saying she has responded well to rehabilitation treatment.

However, Spain’s Constitutional Court rejected the father’s appeal on February 20, ruling there was “no violation of fundamental rights.” The decision clears the way for Noelia to end her life.

Obviously, this story underscores the concerns that pro-life advocates and others have raised about assisted suicide and euthanasia.

When someone attempts suicide, the proper response is compassionate care and treatment — not a prescription for lethal drugs.

Unfortunately, situations like the one in Spain may be more common than many people realize.

Testimony out of Canada shows that people with a history of attempting suicide have been approved for assisted suicide and euthanasia under Canadian law.

In 2024, a Canadian judge authorized an autistic 27-year-old woman to seek assisted suicide. In her case, the court ruled that dying would actually be better than living with autism.

That same year, a 28-year-old Dutch woman was approved for euthanasia because of her depression, autism, and borderline personality disorder.

In the U.S., Oregon first allowed assisted suicide in 1998. Since then official state reports have shown again and again that people receive lethal prescriptions for assisted suicide without being referred for psychological or psychiatric evaluation.

All of this reminds us how assisted suicide actually robs people of compassionate care.

Being pro-life means believing human life is sacred from conception until natural death.

Just like abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are murder, and they violate the sanctity of human life.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Family Council Joins Legal Brief Against Mail-Order Abortion Drugs

On February 13, Family Council joined 43 other pro-life leaders in a legal brief challenging mail-order abortion drugs.

The case is Louisiana v. FDA, in which the State of Louisiana is challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2021 and 2023 rule changes that removed important restrictions on RU-486 and allowed abortion drugs to be delivered through the mail without an in-person visit with a doctor.

Since then, abortionists in other states have marketed abortion drugs to women in Arkansas even though abortion is generally prohibited except to save the life of the mother and it is a crime to deliver abortion drugs by mail into the state.

A good court ruling in this case could help stop the flow of abortion drugs across state lines.

Advancing American Freedom, who led the amicus brief in Louisiana, issued a statement about the lawsuit, saying:

Rosalie Markezich, a Louisiana woman, did not want an abortion. Yet, since the FDA no longer requires women to meet with a medical professional to obtain a mifepristone prescription, her then-boyfriend was able to obtain chemical abortion drugs from a California abortionist through the mail. He then coerced Roselie into taking the abortion pill which killed her baby and left her with lasting mental health challenges, physical pain, and heavy bleeding.

Abortionists should not be able to disregard the laws of pro-life states made possible by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Ignored by the FDA to increase access to abortion drugs, since 1873, the Comstock Act has expressly prohibited the mailing of abortion materials, including any  “thing . . . intended for producing abortion.” Yet the FDA’s removal of the in-person visit requirement facilitates exactly that.

The amicus brief argues that states have the authority to restrict or prohibit abortion, and that the FDA’s abortion drug rules undermine states’ authority to enforce their pro-life laws.

New evidence shows that abortion drugs are much more dangerous than the FDA previously thought. A recent study by the experts at the Ethics and Public Policy Center found abortion drugs are at least 22 times more dangerous than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling indicates. Nearly 11% of women experience serious health complications from abortion pills — including sepsis, infection, and life-threatening hemorrhage. These drugs should not be available at all — much less through the mail.

Family Council is pleased to join with so many other excellent groups who are willing to stand up for innocent human life in court.

You Can Read The Amicus Brief Here.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.