Father of euthanized 25-year-old Spanish woman speaks out as new bill aims to ‘fast track’ appeals
Spain’s Congress is debating a bill that would fast‑track euthanasia requests, limiting judicial review to a single lower‑court hearing before the Constitutional Court. The proposal follows the euthanasia of 25‑year‑old Noelia Castillo, whose father, Javier Castillo, has spoken publicly for the first time after her death. Castillo claims the state handled her case efficiently but neglected her psychological needs and excluded him from her final moments. The bill was introduced by the Catalan regional parliament and was debated just days after a parliamentary tribute to Pope Leo XIV.
4 months ago
The father of Noelia Castillo, a 25‑year‑old Spanish woman who was euthanized in March 2026 after a two‑year legal battle, has spoken publicly for the first time, condemning the case and warning that a new parliamentary bill would further restrict judicial review of euthanasia requests. 1
Noelia Castillo’s euthanasia was carried out on 23 March 2026 under Spain’s 2022 euthanasia law, despite her parents’ objections and a prolonged court fight led by her father, Javier Castillo. 1 2
The case attracted national attention, highlighting tensions between the legal framework for assisted dying and families who oppose it. 2
Javier Castillo told reporters that he believes an injustice was done to his daughter, arguing that more mental‑health resources could have prevented the outcome and that the state acted “efficiently” only to remove the problem. 1
He recounted being excluded from the room when the Guarantees Committee arrived and being denied information, and he emphasized that none of his family wanted the euthanasia. 1 2
Castillo expressed mixed emotions, describing himself as “powerless, like a failure,” yet also stating that his daughter is now in heaven and that the legal fight bought him two years of her life. 2
On 11 June 2026 the Spanish Congress of Deputies began debating a bill that would limit appeals in euthanasia cases to a single lower‑court hearing, with any further challenge possible only through an “amparo” appeal to the Constitutional Court—a route rejected in about 98 % of cases. 1 2
The proposal would route appeals to the Administrative Disputes Chamber of the High Court of Justice of an autonomous community, bypassing provincial and trial courts, thereby drastically reducing judicial scrutiny. 1
The legislative debate commenced three days after Spain’s parliament gave a standing ovation to Pope Leo XIV, who in a historic speech urged legislators that “every human life must be protected,” linking the bill’s timing to the Pope’s moral appeal. 1 2
The Christian Lawyers Foundation released a video featuring Castillo’s testimony and highlighted the case as a societal defeat, calling for greater consideration of families’ perspectives in euthanasia assessments. 1
Both EWTN News and Catholic World Report, the sources of these reports, present the father’s statements and the legislative details within a Catholic‑focused narrative. 2*
Assess Catholic doctrine on euthanasia and judicial review limits
Catholic doctrine draws a clear moral boundary around euthanasia as the intentional taking of innocent life; it also evaluates civil law chiefly by whether it truly serves the common good and safeguards the inviolable right to life—not by whether a proposal is procedurally streamlined.
Catholic teaching grounds its ethic in the fact that human life is sacred because it involves God’s creative action, and that God is “its sole end,” so no one can claim a right “directly to destroy an innocent human being.”
Accordingly, civil authority does have duties, but those duties are ordered to the common good—not to authorizing actions that violate divine law.
The Catechism states the Church’s conclusion without qualification:
“Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person…”
It further clarifies the moral analysis in terms of intention and what is done:
“Direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.”
“Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder…”
Importantly, even “good faith” cannot change what kind of act it is when the moral object is the killing of an innocent person:
“The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act…”
A 1980 Vatican Declaration on euthanasia provides a precise definition and then makes the prohibition correspondingly absolute. It describes euthanasia as:
“an action or an omission which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that all suffering may in this way be eliminated.”
Then it states plainly that no one may permit or request this killing:
The Declaration also addresses the psychology behind requests for death: it acknowledges that such pleas are often anguished and may be reducible in guilt, but it insists that the objective moral nature remains the same:
“the guilt… may be reduced… [yet] the error of judgment… does not change the nature of this act of killing, which will always be in itself something to be rejected.”
The Declaration emphasizes that at the end of life the proper response is to protect dignity without “hastening the hour of death,” and to ensure comfort and charity:
So, within Catholic doctrine, the moral focus is not merely the suffering level but whether the response involves directly causing death—which the Church identifies as intrinsically wrong.
The material provided does not contain a specific magisterial teaching spelling out procedural standards such as “limits to judicial review,” “fast-tracking appeals,” or the detailed design of court systems in euthanasia cases.
What the sources do provide is a moral and political framework for assessing civil law:
Given that intentional/direct euthanasia is “murder” and “morally unacceptable,” a legislature cannot make it legitimate merely by adopting faster processes or narrower avenues of appeal.
In other words, Catholic doctrine evaluates whether a law authorizes (or predictably results in) what the Church identifies as the intentional killing of innocent persons. If it does, the law is morally defective regardless of judicial-review architecture.
Even without a direct procedural prescription, Catholic principles imply that laws affecting “the life of all” should be designed with prudence and serious protection of rights.
Additionally, the Church warns that “the error of judgment” of even “good faith” does not change the nature of the act when death is intended or caused:
“The error of judgment… does not change the nature of this murderous act…”
That means legal systems must not treat euthanasia eligibility primarily as a question of whether someone’s request is subjectively understandable; rather, the law must confront the objective moral reality of intentionally causing death.
So, from a Catholic common-good perspective, tightening or curtailing review in a context involving potential killing increases the risk that the civil system will fail in its duty to protect life and act prudently for “the life of all.”
Catholic doctrine therefore treats the substance (intentional killing vs. non-intentional comfort care) as decisive, while also viewing civil-law prudence as necessary because human judgment can be mistaken even in good faith.