Noelia's Mother Claims Daughter Didn't Meet Euthanasia Criteria

Noelia's Mother Claims Daughter Didn't Meet Euthanasia Criteria

Noelia's mother now asserts that her daughter was not in the terminal stage, did not suffer from pain, and did not have a degenerative disease. In other words, she was not eligible for euthanasia. This claim, spread on social media, represents a complete reversal of the narrative surrounding the case and raises an uncomfortable question: if the requirements were not met, who validated them and based on what criteria?

The Noelia case returns to the forefront with an unexpected change in testimony. The mother now asks Feijóo to eliminate euthanasia, arguing that her daughter did not meet the legal conditions to access it. The majority reaction has been suspicion rather than surprise, pointing to financial interests, a foundation awaiting funding, or belated guilt.

What Exactly Does the New Testimony Say?

The core of the shift is specific: the young woman was not in the terminal phase, showed no signs of pain, and had no diagnosed degenerative illness. These are three assumptions contemplated by law to authorize euthanasia, and all three are suddenly denied. If this is true, the procedure applied would lack basis, and those responsible—the committees that evaluate and authorize—would have to answer for it.

The request to Feijóo adds a political layer to the issue: it asks to repeal the norm, not just review a file. The problem is that reviewing a specific case and repealing a law are different things, and mixing them often serves to avoid addressing the former.

BPD, OCD, and the Debate on Psychiatric Pathology

Part of the analysis shifts to the clinical realm. Noelia is described as having Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) with untreated suicidal ideation. Some argue that this combination makes coexistence hellish and that the system failed to treat the underlying pathology. Counterarguments state that an untreated psychiatric disorder does not equate to a terminal illness, and that prior evaluation should have addressed precisely this.

The discussion about BPD extends to its origins: childhood traumas and dysfunctional family dynamics passed down through generations are cited. This is a hypothesis, not a diagnosis, and should be treated as such.

Money: Compensation, Foundations, and Suspicion

The second major axis is economic. A compensation of 16 million pesetas is mentioned regarding a previous accident, with debate over whether it was collected or blocked by bureaucracy. Disagreement is total: some claim it was denied due to deadlines, others that it was set by the relevant court. No one provides the ruling.

Added to this is the mother's announcement of creating a foundation. The phrase "now I have no means" is interpreted as a plea for money, fueling the thesis that the ultimate goal is to attract aid and subsidies. It is a suspicion, not a proven fact, but it circulates strongly.

The Video, Sisters, and Father

A video released by the mother herself is used to show the other side: the coldness with which the young woman, according to that account, said she would do it on her own if she didn't get euthanasia, and her lack of empathy toward the rest of the family. It is also mentioned that she waited two hours leaning on her father's apartment railing so he would see her jump.

The sisters appear as the main victims, unrelated to the conflict and with their lives ahead. Accusations accumulate against the father—alcoholism, leaving them waiting outside bars, not paying his share of the mortgage, discharging her from psychiatry behind the family's back—which are formulated as alleged and without conviction.

The Deciding Committee and the Unresolved Question

If the young woman did not meet the requirements, responsibility shifts to the guarantee committees that evaluate and authorize. It is pointed out that these bodies are composed of people favorable to euthanasia who are paid for it, introducing a structural conflict of interest. This is an accusation without documentary proof in the available material.

The case leaves an unresolved paradox: a law demanding strict requirements, a procedure that validated them, and a mother who now says they were not met. Who evaluated, what did they write, and why did no one review it beforehand?