Aporias between Pluralism and justice in the Legalization of euthanasia in Colombia

This article suggests reflecting on the difficulty to determine the assertion of the right to die with dignity through euthanasia. It discusses the ethical conflicts that arise when defending this right for those people that are unable to give their consent directly -due to their age or condition- and they do so by the ethical and legal figure of "consent by substitution". Four values that are often in conflict in such cases are analyzed: between those who favor the ultimate therapeutic measures -the use of technology to delay death- as opposed to those who consider that it would be best to suspend such measures -allow the natural outcome of death-; between those who demand to be heard as substitutes -freedom- against those who claim there would be a of unfortunate consequences if this request is granted and consider it to be fair to exercise social control in this respect -justice-. The reasoning behind the theses to solve such conflicts are both controversial and contradictory. To settle this aporia, a methodological approach is proposed to understand the conflicting values, as well as the exchange that can be made between them. With this in mind, a bioethical perspective based on critical abilities of dialectical origin is proposed.