(ZENIT News / Bogotá, 05.05.2026).- A new regulatory step by Colombia’s Ministry of Health has reopened one of the most sensitive moral debates in Latin America, extending the scope of euthanasia beyond terminal illness to include non-terminal conditions, psychiatric disorders, and even minors. The measure, formalized in Resolution 0813-2026 on April 28, marks a significant shift in a country where euthanasia, though not legislated by Congress, has gradually taken shape through constitutional jurisprudence and administrative regulation since it was decriminalized in 1997.
The new framework authorizes euthanasia for individuals diagnosed with what the government defines as a “serious and incurable disease,” a category now broadened to include cases originating in mental illness. It also applies to patients suffering from severe bodily injuries involving the loss of one or more organ systems due to external causes. In practical terms, this expands eligibility well beyond the traditional understanding of end-of-life care, raising questions about the criteria used to assess suffering, autonomy, and medical prognosis.
Perhaps the most controversial dimension of the resolution lies in its application to minors. Adolescents aged 12 and above may now request euthanasia under the same general conditions as adults. Even more strikingly, children between 6 and 12 years old could be considered eligible if they demonstrate what the regulation describes as an “exceptional neurocognitive and psychological development,” sufficient to make a “free, voluntary, informed, and unequivocal” decision, and if their understanding of death corresponds to that expected of a child aged 12 or older.
This provision has triggered immediate political backlash. Senator Mauricio Giraldo denounced the measure as “an aberration” and “a moral defeat for the nation,” arguing that it places the authority of the state above that of families in matters of life and death. In public statements, he criticized the apparent contradiction between the government’s self-description as a defender of life and its decision to expand access to euthanasia, particularly among vulnerable populations such as minors, persons with disabilities, and those suffering from mental illness.
Giraldo also warned that the new policy effectively assigns the state a decisive role in determining who lives and who dies, a threshold he considers ethically unacceptable. He pledged to challenge the resolution through legal, legislative, and civic channels, signaling that the debate is likely to move beyond rhetoric into institutional confrontation.
Similar concerns were voiced by Representative Luis Miguel López, who framed the measure as part of a broader pattern of governance by executive decree on issues that have failed to secure parliamentary approval. He argued that the expansion of euthanasia reflects a deeper cultural and political shift, one that, in his view, undermines the protection of life and imposes controversial norms without sufficient democratic deliberation.
López also connected the issue to Colombia’s electoral horizon, suggesting that future leadership choices will be decisive in determining whether such policies are maintained or reversed. His remarks point to the likelihood that euthanasia, alongside other bioethical questions, will become a defining topic in upcoming political campaigns.
Behind the immediate controversy lies a more structural tension within Colombian law. Unlike countries where euthanasia is regulated through comprehensive legislation, Colombia operates within a hybrid model shaped by Constitutional Court rulings and successive administrative guidelines. This has allowed for incremental expansion over time, but also leaves the framework vulnerable to criticism over its coherence, oversight, and democratic legitimacy.
From a medical and ethical standpoint, the inclusion of psychiatric conditions introduces an additional layer of complexity. Assessing decision-making capacity in patients with mental illness is inherently challenging, and the irreversible nature of euthanasia raises the stakes of any potential error. Likewise, extending eligibility to minors confronts long-standing principles regarding consent, protection, and the role of families in safeguarding the well-being of children.
For many observers, the debate ultimately transcends legal technicalities. It touches on fundamental questions about the meaning of autonomy, the limits of medical intervention, and the responsibility of society toward its most vulnerable members. In a country marked by deep social inequalities and uneven access to healthcare, critics argue that the expansion of euthanasia risks being perceived not as an expression of freedom, but as a response to suffering that has not been adequately addressed.
Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.
