“Euthanasia is an option, not a general right”: Esteban Torres calls for clear rules in its regulation
During Session 080 of the Plenary of the National Assembly of Ecuador, the debate continued on the bill seeking to regulate euthanasia in Ecuador, an initiative that emerged following the historic ruling of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador.
During his intervention, Assemblyman Esteban Torres emphasized the need to establish strict legal controls to prevent abuses, as well as the urgent need to strengthen access to palliative care. In this context, he was categorical in stating that the constitutional ruling does not establish a “general right” to euthanasia, but rather enables it only as an exceptional option.
He further emphasized that this measure should not be conceived as a general right, but as an exceptional option that requires legislative caution in order to prevent abuses or possible external pressures. Likewise, he underlined the need to reform the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code in order to provide legal certainty to healthcare professionals and, at the same time, strengthen access to palliative care. This would allow patients to refuse therapeutic obstinacy and guarantee a dignified death, avoiding the unnecessary prolongation of suffering.
The Court’s decision determined the conditional constitutionality of Article 144 of the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code, exempting doctors who perform active euthanasia from criminal liability, provided that strict requirements are met: the existence of intense and intolerable suffering and the patient’s free, informed, and unequivocal consent.
Legal and Medical Controls as a Safeguard
In response to positions that propose simplifying procedures, Torres defended the implementation of review committees as an indispensable control mechanism. In his view, an “agile but active” bureaucracy constitutes a necessary safeguard to protect people in vulnerable situations.
The legislator warned that these filters are key to preventing possible external pressures, whether due to economic, family, or third-party interests, ensuring that the patient’s decision is truly autonomous.
Palliative Care and Rejection of Therapeutic Obstinacy
Another central point of his intervention was the reality of Ecuador’s healthcare system in relation to terminal patients. Torres warned that only 3% of vulnerable individuals have access to adequate palliative care.
Along these lines, he highlighted the importance of Article 6 of the bill, which recognizes the patient’s right to reject so-called “therapeutic obstinacy,” avoiding the artificial prolongation of life against the patient’s will when there are no real possibilities of recovery.
The Paola Roldán Precedent
During the debate, the case of Paola Roldán was also recalled. Her legal struggle paved the way for the conditional decriminalization of euthanasia in Ecuador. Torres stressed that, despite having driven this historic change, Roldán died naturally, which, in his view, reaffirms that euthanasia must be understood as an exceptional alternative, not as a generalized solution.
Finally, the intervention left a clear message: legislating on life and death allows no room for improvisation. Torres urged his colleagues to build a consensus that protects the process, preventing such a deeply significant issue from being exposed to legal gaps. He emphasized that it must be a formal, clear, and rights-protective law that establishes the limits, procedures, and safeguards in Ecuador.