On the contrary, it is a way to protect the dignity, autonomy, and private life of individuals. In Mexico, we remain trapped in a legal hypocrisy. There are rights that a democracy recognizes without too much scandal, and others that, as soon as they are mentioned, reveal a society's deep-seated fear of relinquishing control over people's lives. Switzerland and several U.S. states allow forms of assisted suicide. Noelia forced Spain to respond whether free will is more important than paternalism. Available polls show consistent public support. A survey by the University of Valle de Mexico reported that 72 percent of Mexicans believe euthanasia should be legalized. Afterward, she attempted to take her own life and survived with irreversible sequelae, functional dependence, and suffering that she considered unbearable. She requested euthanasia under a law in Spain, but her father and the ultra-Catholic group 'Christian Lawyers' launched a legal offensive to prevent it, arguing she was not in a position to decide for herself. Noelia faced not only a clinical debate. Advance directives to reject life-prolonging treatments are permitted in various states, but medical assistance in dying remains under criminal prosecution and moral suspicion. Therefore, the battle of Samara Martínez and the association For the Right to Die with Dignity deserves public attention and a favorable political response. The initiative called the Transcend Law seeks to reform the General Health Law to explicitly recognize euthanasia based on principles of dignity, autonomy, and justice, with strict requirements: majority age, full mental capacity, concurrent medical opinions, and repeated expression of will. Moreover, the public is far ahead of its political elites. Euthanasia reveals the contradictions within political, religious, medical, and family power. The case of Noelia Castillo Ramos in Spain became emblematic, not only because of the harshness of her story but because it concentrated almost all the elements with which conservatism usually blocks rights. Noelia was a victim of multiple sexual assault. As if the conservative lobby weighed more than democratic conviction. In a country that has intensely discussed reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, and gender identity, why does no one want to clearly state whether they are for or against euthanasia? The conservative opposition insists on presenting it as a culture of death. Sooner or later, it will have to be answered. Because the last freedom is not about dying, but about no one—the state, the church, the family, or a party—stripping you of the right to decide until the very end. Suggested reading: 'In Praise of Euthanasia' by Fernando Pedrós Pérez (Icaria). That is, society has already opened a conversation that parties continue to avoid. And that silence is revealing. The Transcend Law has found support from lawmakers from Morena, Citizen Movement, and other forces, but no party has yet assumed a clear, comprehensive, and public stance on the right to die with dignity. There is individual support, but no institutional definitions. It is about not forcing anyone to continue in an existence they deem unworthy when that decision has been made with full capacity, without coercion, and under strict supervision. She encountered the old paternalism of always: others wanting to decide for her in the name of what is right, of life, of morality, or of God. In her story, violence against women, acquired disability, physical and psychological pain, family conflict, doubts about her mental capacity, and an ideological lawsuit promoted by confessional groups all converged. Her case is so important because it shows that even when a right already exists in law, there are powers willing to turn it into a dead letter. Spain regulates euthanasia under a guarantee model: two requests, medical deliberation, independent review, access to palliative care, and verification that the decision is free and informed. Noelia's litigation went through several instances and even reached the European Court of Human Rights, which refused to halt the procedure. The message was clear: legalizing euthanasia does not violate the right to life if there are safeguards. The opposite is not a defense of life: it is the imposition of suffering. In the world, the trend is already visible. The discussion is not about devaluing life, but about preventing biological life from becoming an obligation imposed from the outside. It is also not about forcing anyone to die. It is a misrepresentation. The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, New Zealand, and several Australian jurisdictions have regulated euthanasia or some form of medical assistance in dying. Samara poses the same question to Mexico.
