The Constitutional Court (TC) has rejected in its plenary session this Wednesday the appeal against the Euthanasia Law (LORE) presented by the PP, as it did last March with that of Vox, also based on the fact that there is no “obligation to to stay alive”, although it has responded to some new questions to limit conscientious objection to health professionals in the face of the ‘popular’ request, who proposed extending it to legal entities.

As reported by the TC itself, “the ruling resolves, rejecting them, two new complaints related to conscientious objection of legal entities and the use of the preferential and summary process to protect euthanasia.”

“In relation to conscientious objection of legal entities and in accordance with the constitutional configuration of this right, the ruling maintains that the only actions susceptible to being exonerated from the legal duty to guarantee the right to provide assistance in dying, in the terms in which it has been configured by the LORE, because they are covered by conscientious objection, are the interventions of health professionals, regardless of their professional category, in the effective execution of said service,” answers the court of guarantees.

It clarifies that “it is only with respect to such interventions when it must be noted that conflict situations may arise due to intimate, ideological or moral convictions, which justify the departure of the health professional from an intervention that constitutes, in general, a legal imperative.”

“Beyond these exceptional cases, extending conscientious objection to an institutional setting as the appellants intend, would not only lack constitutional basis, but would put at risk the effectiveness of the health care provision itself,” the magistrates state.