Spotlight on the Americas
Euthanasia in Colombia

By Raimundo Rojas

Editor's note. Much press coverage has been given to the 1997 decision of Colombia's highest court that seemingly legalized euthanasia in that South American country. NRLC's director of Hispanic Outreach explains that things are not so clear. In light of subsequent action by the Colombian Senate inconsistent with the Court ruling, eminent Colombian authorities argue that under that country's constitutional law, legal protection against direct killing remains.

Jose Parra is a hardworking and dedicated lawyer in Santa Fe de Bogotá, Colombia. In the late 1990s Mr. Parra was troubled by what he considered the lackadaisical way in which the Colombian Constitution treated those committing active euthanasia under the banner of mercy killing. In section 326 of the Code of Criminal Law in Colombia, "mercy killing" was described as (literal translation),

"Mercy Killing: That who killed someone else for mercy, to end the acute suffering caused by a bodily injury or serious and or incurable disease, will be sentenced to imprisonment between six months and three years."

Mr. Parra felt that the penalty should be stiffer and that a more protective law would act as a deterrent to the wanton killing of the elderly and infirm. He then took it upon himself to challenge this statute before the Colombian Supreme Court.

Colombia's Constitutional Court agreed to hear his case, and as the date for the hearing loomed closer and closer, local papers began taking editorial positions on one side of the debate or the other. News stories also appeared that either supported Mr. Parra's position or opposed it.

One of the more interesting and well-covered stories was that of Alejandrina Larota de Vargas. Mrs. Larota de Vargas was suffering from terminal cancer when she begged her children to find a doctor to end her life.

Her family members went as far as contacting a doctor willing to perform what they thought was a "mercy killing." Even though the act was illegal at the time, all of Mrs. Larota de Vargas' children agreed to go through with it.

Fortunately for the 80-year-old Vargas, her granddaughter Marta Avila sought, and found, ways to manage her pain, and Mrs. Vargas was spared. Through the help of the Omega Foundation, Mrs. Vargas lived nearly an additional four months without pain and never again requested suicide.

Many agree that had the Vargas family faced this decision within the scope of legalized euthanasia, the choice of looking for alternatives to the pain might not have been made.

With this story and many others like it appearing in periodicals all over Colombia, the date of the hearing approached. Lawyer Parra prepared his argument as did his opponent, the People's Defender Jose Fernando Caycedo.

Mr. Caycedo argued that the statute listed in section 326 was enough of a deterrent. (It's important to note that nowhere in his argument did Mr. Caycedo ask the court to repeal the current law; he simply asked that it be upheld and enforced.)

In his arguments before the Court, Mr. Parra stated, "The principal role of a Social and Democratic State is to guarantee people's lives by protecting them from dangerous circumstances, avoiding attempts against them, and punishing those who breach their rights. The State is currently not performing its function in the accused rule because it leaves to the discretion of the doctor or the person in charge of making the decision to terminate the life of whom he regards as an obstacle, as a nuisance, or as a high expense for health care."

On May 20, 1997, in a landmark 6-3 decision, the Constitutional Court did not stiffen the statute. Instead the court stated, "no person can be held criminally responsible for taking the life of a terminally ill patient who has given authorization to do so."

After a long diatribe on the merits of decriminalizing euthanasia, the Columbian Constitutional Court ended with two decrees: 1) that article 326 is constitutional with the construction that in the case of a terminally ill patient who exercises free will to concur in his own death, no responsibility should be attributed to the acting physician, as his conduct would be justified; and 2) "To exhort Congress to make provision on the matter of death with dignity in the shortest possible period of time and taking into consideration the constitutional principles and the elemental considerations of humanity."

This ruling made Colombia the only country in the Western Hemisphere whose Supreme Court permitted the practice of active euthanasia.

In a radio interview shortly after the Court's announcement, Mr. Parra, who first brought this before the Court, said he feared that "the ruling will increase the level of criminality in cases where somebody hopes to prosper from the estate of a wealthy, terminally ill patient."

He was also quoted in the Washington Post as saying, "Life is a legal concept that deserves the full protection of the State."

But how definitive was the Court's May 1997 ruling? While many argued that the ruling had opened the door to legalized euthanasia, just what effect the ruling truly had remains unclear.

In fact, rather than subsiding, the debate grew more intense. Pro-life groups such as the Culture of Life Foundation and the Catholic Church, which had vehemently disagreed with the Court's position, began a campaign of educating legislators on the evils of euthanasia. The pro-euthanasia movement also began its campaign of misinformation.

Monsignor Alberto Giraldo, president of Colombia's Episcopal conference, petitioned the Court to reconsider its decision. However, on October 3, 1997, the Colombian Constitutional Court rejected Monsignor Giraldo's request by the same 6-3 vote as in the original ruling.

After 18 months the Colombian Senate finally considered the Constitutional Court's decrees. According to Senator Carlos Corsi, the Senate rejected the Court's interpretation. Therefore, there is still a legal penalty for performing euthanasia in Colombia.

Sen. Corsi explained that in Colombia the way it has worked in the past is that the Constitutional Court sets forth the rules but it is the Congress that enacts them and sets regulations (a little backwards from the way we do things in the United States). In this instance the Senate squashed any legislation that would have codified the Court's ruling.

"Some may argue that a legal ambiguity exists regarding euthanasia in Colombia, but the truth of the matter is, that as I stated before, there is a legal penalty for performing or assisting in suicide," Sen. Corsi said. "Some may argue that euthanasia is legal in theory; it is certainly not legal in practice."

Mrs. Marta Saez, president of the Culture of Life Foundation, agreed. The Colombian Senate's action has restored some protection to the lives of the people of Colombia, she said.

According to Mrs. Saez, no lives were lost due to the Court's ruling. She stresses that so much media attention was given to the Court's ruling that many still believe Colombia has legal euthanasia.

Mrs. Saez wants every one to know that "euthanasia is not legal in Colombia and never will be." For more information please contact the Culture of Life Foundation by e-mail at cuhumana@col1.telecom.com.co.