The most recent advance in the debate on the right to die with dignity in Colombia arises after the decision of the Constitutional Court to review the case of Catalina Giraldo, a 30-year-old psychologist from Bogotá who faces a psychiatric condition considered serious, chronic, incurable and refractory.
This review could open the door to the first substantive statement regarding the barriers that persist in access to medical assistance for suicide (AMS) within the Colombian health system.
The file was assigned to the magistrate and president of the Court, Paola Meneses Mosquera, who will have the task of preparing a presentation on effective access to the AMS in the country. According to the legal group DescLAB, which accompanies the process, the review occurs in the midst of an “institutional limbo” that has prevented Giraldo from exercising a right previously recognized by constitutional jurisprudence.
Although Sentence C-164 of 2022 decriminalized medical assistance for suicide in Colombia, there are still no clear administrative protocols for its implementation. Meanwhile, there are provisions for euthanasia and palliative care, which exacerbates the feeling of legal vacuum for those who request AMS.
Giraldo was diagnosed with major depressive disorder, borderline personality disorder and anxiety disorder. For almost a decade, he has received multiple medical interventions, including more than 40 pharmacological regimens.three cycles of electroconvulsive therapy and six ketamine infusions, in addition to nine psychiatric hospitalizations since 2020, without achieving sustained improvement, as detailed by his lawyer.
The formal request for access to the AMS was submitted in October 2025. However, EPS Sanitas denied the procedure, based on the lack of regulations issued by the Ministry of Health. DescLAB assures that the Ministry has stated that it has not received an express order to regulate the AMS and that Congress has not approved a law that regulates it either. The result, according to the group, is an institutional blockade that keeps people like Catalina in a situation of uncertainty.
The case of Catalina Giraldo transcends the individual. For the promoters of the action, the review may lead the Constitutional Court to determine whether the absence of regulations should continue to be an obstacle to accessing the AMS.: “The Court has the opportunity to clarify that suicide prevention continues to be a central obligation of the State, but that it does not exhaust its duties in the face of requests for a dignified death. In certain cases, the constitutional response must be to guarantee a safe, accompanied and protected death,” said Lucas Correa, director of research at DescLAB.
The fundamental difference between euthanasia and AMS, according to current law, lies in the execution: In euthanasia, the doctor directly administers the lethal medications. In AMS, on the other hand, the health professional prescribes and provides the drugs, but it is the patient themselves who decides when and how to self-administer them. This distinction, noted DescLAB, does not seek to weaken suicide prevention policies, but rather to open a debate on the state response to those who, after years of suffering and unsuccessful treatment, opt for a modality of dignified death already recognized by the Court.
Currently, AMS in Colombia is decriminalized for those who meet certain conditions: suffering from a serious and incurable bodily injury or illness, enduring physical or mental pain incompatible with their idea of a dignified life.express their will in a free and informed manner and receive the assistance of a doctor. However, the regulatory vacuum has left patients like Catalina in a kind of legal and administrative labyrinth.
According to DescLAB, the selection of the case in the Constitutional Court is an essential but insufficient step: “Catalina needs an urgent substantive response. When a person remains trapped in an institutional blockage, a late ruling can end up leading them to a traumatic death, instead of the safe, accompanied and protected death they want.”
