The judge of the Constitutional Court Enrique Arnaldo in the plenary session in January 2023.ZIPI (EFE)
Judge Enrique Arnaldo of the conservative part of the Constitutional Court has given his dissenting vote to the ruling that rejected the PP’s appeal against the euthanasia law. In it he claims: “It is undeniable that there are private health centers from which they benefit.” their institutions is an attack on the right to freedom of belief and religion (Article 16.1 of the Constitution) in its collective dimension.”
Arnaldo believes that the Constitutional Court ruling of the 13th “avoids” the issue of conscientious objection when it concerns legal entities, limiting it to health professionals. The dissenting opinion assumes that the court gave “a formal, evasive and inadequate response to the applicants’ complaint” in its judgment. He adds that the ruling does not even correspond to the content of the challenged law itself. Arnaldo’s argument is that while the law “establishes a legal obligation to guarantee the right to euthanasia for public health services, this guarantee does not apply on the same terms with regard to private or subsidized health centers.”
In this context, the dissenting voice takes the view that the euthanasia law only stipulates that “access and quality of care must not be affected by the place where it is carried out”, but “does not directly impose on these health centers the obligation to ensure this imposed.” the provision of euthanasia.” Arnaldo focuses his text on this aspect, since the court placed particular emphasis on the conscientious objection to legal entities in response to the PP’s proposals. Unlike Vox’s challenge, which was rejected last March, the PP’s thesis focused on the fact that not only health professionals and ultimately natural persons could raise this objection.
Arnaldo also criticizes that the ruling confirmed the constitutionality of the law with regard to its provision that appeals on the right to euthanasia be processed “in accordance with the primary and summary procedure for the protection of the fundamental rights of the person.” The PP’s appeal – the dissenting vote states – should have been upheld since “the preferential and summary procedure (of possible appeals), based on the speed of judicial protection”, is reserved in the Constitution itself “for the protection of fundamental rights”. is rights and freedoms,” which, he adds, does not include euthanasia.
“Since the right to euthanasia recognized and regulated in Organic Law 3/2021 (the one contested by the PP) is not a fundamental right,” argues the dissenting voice, “it is unconstitutional for the claims related to the refusal of the service” that this right through the privileged procedural guarantee provided for in Article 53.2 of the Constitution is implemented. This thesis is also shared by Judge Concepción Espejel, who also voted against the judgment confirming the euthanasia law and rejected the appeal filed by the PP to declare it unconstitutional.
What influences the most is what happens next. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits