This is how your case progresses after it was denied

Laverde asked himself that question in the most recent report he made on the subject, which was issued this Monday on Noticias Caracol. In it, the reporter made it clear that there are certain contradictions in the decision made by the scientific committee of IPS Incodol, denying Mrs. Martha Sepúlveda the euthanasia that had already been approved previously, just 36 hours after the procedure was carried out.

Incodol’s manager explained to the news that the entity’s scientific committee denied euthanasia to Sepúlveda because he did not comply with the condition that he suffered from a disease with which he had a life expectancy of less than six months, and also because it did not it was getting worse. Nevertheless, Laverde showed that the last assessment made by Martha’s neurologist included a concept in which she indicated that the patient was showing greater deterioration, at the same time that he recognized that his euthanasia was approved because the legislation on the subject changed. (See also: They warn of irregularities on both sides in the event of cancellation of euthanasia)

La paisa was to become the first patient with a non-terminal diagnosis to access euthanasia in Colombia. She has suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) for three years, which seriously affected her legs and now almost does not allow her to walk.

Contrary to the IPS argument that Martha’s disease was not getting worse, her neurologist’s report made last week said the following about the progression of her complaints: “Increased gait deterioration, he manages to take a few steps with the support of his son. He has had significant pain and days of greater exacerbations that make him require bed rest ”. (You may be interested: “The Court protected his right”: Alvira puts IPS on the ropes that canceled euthanasia)

The same report confirms that the 51-year-old woman was approved for euthanasia because the legislation on dignified death changed last July, when the Constitutional Court extended that right to people who do not have terminal illnesses. That is why it is not clear why the IPS scientific committee reversed the procedure arguing that the patient did not suffer from a terminal condition, if the same Court confirmed months ago that this is no longer a requirement to access euthanasia.

Read also

“Then there has been a change in the legislation and the patient made her request with its approval”, says the neurologist’s report on why the procedure that the paisa wanted so much was endorsed.

After reviewing the details surrounding the Sepúlveda case, the journalist Laverde asked himself: “Is the health system charging Martha Sepúlveda for having come out smiling in a report drinking beer and eating patacón?”

In the interview that she gave to Noticias Caracol a couple of weeks ago to talk about her case, the woman had made it clear that she saw more sense in receiving euthanasia at this point in her life and not in a few years when her illness get worse and feel dead while alive. “Why do I want euthanasia authorized when I am still dead? I don’t even have permission, I’m lying on a bed. Why do I want euthanasia if I am already dead “the woman mused.

Here is Laverde’s recent report: