Psychologist becomes first person in Peru to die by euthanasia after yearslong court fight

Ana Estrada fought successfully in court to obtain the right to decide when to end her life with the help of medical professionals.

A Peruvian psychologist who suffered from an incurable disease that weakened her muscles and had her confined to her bed for several years died by euthanasia, becoming the first person in the country to obtain the right to die with medical assistance, her lawyer said Monday.

Ana Estrada fought for years in Peruvian courts for the right to die with dignity, and became a celebrity in the conservative country where euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal.

In 2022, Estrada was granted an exception by the nation’s Supreme Court, which upheld a ruling by a lower court that gave Estrada the right to decide when to end her life, and said that those who helped her would not be punished. Estrada became the first person to obtain the right to die with medical assistance in Peru.

“Ana’s struggle for her right to die with dignity has helped to educate thousands of Peruvians about this right and the importance of defending it,” her lawyer, Josefina Miró Quesada, said in a statement. “Her struggle transcended our nation’s borders.”

Crackhappy,
@Crackhappy@lemmy.world avatar

I am so glad she’s dead. It might be helpful to think about the fact that she would agree with me.

misc,

I hope euthenasia for people who want it becomes legal everywhere so people can die without resorting to painfull methods . No one accidentally or in a whim decides to die so it is more human to let them die painlessly , quickly and with dignity instead of getting splattered by jumping from building , brain blown out etc .

taanegl,

Good. The right to a dignified end of life should not be infringed when the conditions of living are unbearable.

Those who want some people to sit around and suffer, to not be able to participate in anything, to be a high maintenance ornament in someone’s life, because they feel it’s morally incorrect to give someone peace, need to get their heads checked and their morals examined pronto.

Forcing someone other than yourself to suffer because of your morals is sociopathic. You don’t live that life, so you don’t get to decide. You already have your own priveliged life to decide over. It’s not your right to decide what other people do with theirs, even if you’re close family. If a person is of sound mind and wants to start that long, beurocratic laden process, then so be it.

There should be barrier to entry, but not a complete ban.

Blackrook7,

The thing is, it can and will be abused either way it goes, and keeping people alive has more benefit so far than killing them or letting them die…

IrateAnteater,

The thing is, it can and will be abused either way

So you are in favour of banning cars, guns, alcohol, knives, hammers, axes, all the strong painkillers, rope, and all the other things I can think of that have been abused causing death?

ivanafterall,
ivanafterall avatar

More benefit to whom?

taanegl,

That’s the same thinking that allows governments to justify poking holes in cryptography, only in reverse. “Oh we have to catch the terrorists and the PDF files.” Oh yeah? What about the journalists, the political dissidents, the leakers? All swept under the same rug.

Saying that some people who will abuse the privelige is kind of wild though. Imagine going through the process for what, 4 years… 6 years, if getting a dignified end in the Netherlands, being constantly monitored by psychiatrists and talking with family members, as if it’s as easy as getting a smoke.

In fact, that’s a great episode idea for South Park. Cartman disappears for a few years and we only get glimpses of him facetiming the boys from the Netherlands, because he’s ¼ Dutch (half the broncos have Dutch family lines) - and Cartman absolutely hates the Dutch. After 2 years, he gets bored and comes home.

Nougat,

The problem is "who decides." In a perfect world, the patient would always be of sound mind, and the patient would always decide. But then who decides if the patient is of sound mind?

There should be barrier to entry, but not a complete ban.

This is absolutely true, but that barrier to entry is always going to exclude some people who arguably should not be excluded. There will always be dissatisfaction, and there will always be complaints like yours.

wintermute_oregon,

You’re trying to create a slippery slope when one isn’t there. Nobody is talking states executing people. That’s when the patient doesn’t have a choice.

The debate is around people making their own decision which I support.

taanegl,

But then who decides if the patient is of sound mind?

Professional psychiatrists, the family and the individual… like seriously. Do you think the process is easy? Go on, brew some coffee or tea and then sit to search how certain countries handle dignified end of life.

See how that process is usually a long series of tests, conversations and verification. It’s not “let’s pop down to the doctors and get grandma euthanised”. It’s an insane amount of beurocracy and a lot of time before you even get close to a due date, and even then you can cancel at any time.

I think people need to get more informed about this issue, because you can’t exactly form an opinion without seeing how something like that can work IRL, when it’s been proven to work IRL. More people are accepting of it and a lot of pain and heartache will be spared because of it, because at the end of the day it’s about dignity.

Forcing people to continue when they can have no life to continue, when they are a financial and emotional burden on their families and unable to actually grow and live, like an actual person, like me and you. To force them to just sit there, like a potted plant, like a doll you put away on the shelf when you return to your life. That is selfish, that is undignified.

wintermute_oregon,

People try to go down the slippery slope that’ll turn into a culling of the sick or old.

Nobody is suggesting that. What is being suggested is let people choose when it’s time. I agree with that. Let people die on their own terms Oregon has the law and people often ask for it and then don’t use it

taanegl,

“A culling of the sick”? Are you kidding me? Bruh, we liv in western liberal capitalist democracies. We want them to live so we can exploit the shit out of then.

Secondly, you’re saying because the process is rarely used, it should not be codified? How does that make sense? It still needs a form of legal protocol and framework, especially for something like this - and that includes several steps, several people, consensus.

Semantics, mf. Do you speak it?!

wintermute_oregon,

Secondly, you’re saying because the process is rarely used, it should not be codified? Not sure how you came to that conclusion when I specifically talked about my state that did put it in law.

Ekybio,
@Ekybio@lemmy.world avatar

Forcing someone other than yourself to suffer because of your morals is sociopathic.

An accurate description of conservatives who will, Im very sure of that, fight to never make this a reality in other parts of the world.

Just look at abortion or trans-rights to get peek into the right-wings barely functional mind on these topics. This will be all the same again, because they just hate you.

EdibleFriend,
@EdibleFriend@lemmy.world avatar

Who amongst us hasn’t had a psychologist kill themselves after you talk to them for a few years

Nurse_Robot,

Poor taste.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • world@lemmy.world
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • osvaldo12
  • magazineikmin
  • cubers
  • rosin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • tacticalgear
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • kavyap
  • InstantRegret
  • Durango
  • JUstTest
  • everett
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • anitta
  • cisconetworking
  • tester
  • ngwrru68w68
  • GTA5RPClips
  • normalnudes
  • megavids
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •