Through her personal blog, the activist has publicly defended her fight and has become the visible face of attempts to legalize euthanasia in the South American country. The term© «euthanasia» comes from the combination of the Greek words «eu» (good) and «thanatos» (death), which as a whole could be interpreted as «good death», that is, death without agony or suffering of any kind. If a person suffers from a disease that is not curable or that means a lot of suffering, would it be possible to resort to euthanasia? Are options allowed in Peru? The «protocol of action» on how Estrada`s right to die with dignity will be implemented has not yet been decided, the court said. A social security doctor will perform euthanasia in the future if she orders it. The applicant for the first euthanasia in Peru is Ana Estrada, an activist suffering from incurable and progressive polymyositis. Everywhere euthanasia has caused and will cause great controversy, but over time its regulation has evolved, first applied as pious murder, until it is applied as «euthanasia», although in Peru pious murder, characterized by Article 112 ° of the Penal Code, is still regulated, there is hope that it can be decriminalized and applied to people, who need it. Ana Estrada filed a lawsuit against amparo with the Peruvian judiciary in January 2020 to gain access to euthanasia. It can be concluded that this section is intended to regulate assisted suicide and not euthanasia. However, what Article 113 ignores is that both (euthanasia and assisted suicide) are based on the protection of an autonomous decision of the same person, with the difference that in the case of euthanasia, this is done with the help of a third party and in the case of assisted suicide, the one who commits the act that leads to the death of the person, it is himself. Therefore, neither of the two figures mentioned includes incitement to suicide, since both are based on autonomous decisions.

so that the professionals involved cannot be prosecuted. In this sense, with regard to the case of Ana Estrada, we consider it necessary to put back on the table the debate on the decriminalization of euthanasia, because as long as our system lacks adequate regulation, the people affected and their families will be forced to endure the agony of a death that is as unbearable as it is avoidable. Finally, if we analyze the case of Colombia, where euthanasia is a free service for the population, as our closest example, we must be aware of the existence of various obstacles to its application in Peru. Euthanasia requires organized consultation systems and, above all, a good number of professionals trained to give an opinion on the issue and meet the requirements of the law. However, the inefficiency of the State cannot serve as a basis for violating fundamental rights or depriving Peruvians of identical regulations in this area. At the time of writing, Ana Estrada and the people in her situation are now waiting for a response that makes their right to a dignified death effective. It is necessary to make the issue visible in spaces of representation and to demand that the State accept it as a fundamental right, so that it can be realized and guarantee its progressive exercise. In light of this analysis, we see that the article referring to pious homicide and the article referring to incitement to suicide are far from what we mean by euthanasia. In this sense, it is worth asking whether Articles 112 and 113 of the Criminal Code will actually be applicable if this procedure were to be conducted.

(Mendoza, 2014: 41) We believe that a viable option would not be to decriminalize them in their entirety, but to strictly exempt them from liability only in certain cases and in accordance with the requirements established by law. This is similar to its regulation in countries like Holland – or as mentioned previously – in Colombia to avoid the expatriation of euthanasia and not leave much room for interpretation or arbitrary applications. Euthanasia is also©understood as dying for mercy; After all, prolonging the existence of a person who constantly suffers from many physical ailments only prolongs his suffering. Therefore, from my point of view, the decision about our body in time should be an option that each person should make about their own body. The judge`s decision, which is also based on aspects such as pain and human life as an act of freedom, only applies to Estrada`s case, but Congressman Gino Costa introduced a bill last month to regulate the use of euthanasia. The Ombudsman`s deputy for constitutional affairs, Percy Castillo, said that if a legal action appeals Judge Ramãrez`s decision, the company will continue to sponsor the psychologist. In her apartment in a middle-class neighborhood of Lima, Estrada writes a blog called «Ana por una muerte digna,» in which she shares her reasons for applying for a euthanasia permit. In 2019, he wrote: «Dignified death in Peru is illegal, I live in a state that takes away my freedom, and a life without freedom is not a life because my body belongs to this state.» Demand was unprecedented in Peru. Euthanasia is illegal in this country. Peru`s penal code punishes the «pious murder» of an incurable patient with up to three years in prison.

During his turbulent first 12 months, the Peruvian president confirmed the worst expectations. The country is openly debating its exit, while Peruvian democracy seems increasingly on the verge of collapse. On the other hand, euthanasia can be understood as a human life that manages to satisfy its basic needs in all aspects, but how can one define a dignified life when it can also©be understood from such different approaches, since each person perceives dignified life differently; And precisely where the idea of the modern state saves us, this state is responsible for ensuring minimum conditions of quality and development, which must be fulfilled until the last moment of life. Finally, it is necessary to emphasize that euthanasia should never be understood as a duty for either of the parties concerned. As already mentioned, it must be an individual decision and be based on the right to decide one`s own life. Similarly, the democratic debate on their regulation must focus on legal, political and even economic arguments.