Noelia Ramos, a 25-year-old paraplegic woman, was euthanised in Spain on 26 March 2026, despite not having a terminal illness.

The doctor who oversaw the euthanasia procedure also acted as a transplant coordinator, creating a conflict of interest in that she had an institutional interest in obtaining Noelia’s organs.

But that’s not all.  Since November 2025, the killer doctor has been under investigation for a legal complaint made about her for falsifying documents and abuse of power to alter the decision-making process about Noelia’s euthanasia.

It Takes A Lot To Shock Me, But The Euthanasia Of Noelia Ramos Has Left Me Reeling

By Jonathan Engler, 12 April 2026

For those who don’t know, a 25-year-old woman called Noelia Ramos was euthanised in Spain on 26 March 2026.

Many disputed claims are being made about the circumstances around this, and in the media, the story is being framed (by all sides, it has to be said) politically and ideologically, with little regard to the truth.

This post is a classic example:

To be honest, I don’t have the resources to research each point being made, but the undisputed parts of the story make for distressing enough reading.

I am not going to recount those here, other than to point out that it certainly seems to be undisputed that:

• Noelia was under the care of the state when she was gang-raped twice.
• After the second incident, she attempted to commit suicide by jumping out of a window and through a spinal cord injury she sustained, she became paraplegic.
• Noelia did NOT have a terminal illness.
• Videos are circulating of her condition physically improving somewhat as she attempts – and manages – a few steps on crutches (see HERE, for example).

Beyond those facts, all other claimed facts look coloured by portrayal through an ideological lens, apart from one – to me, startling – piece of information which emerged in the days after the procedure:

The text of the X post (translated) reads:

“The responsible doctor with whom Noelia signed her euthanasia request was not her family doctor nor her psychiatrist; she was the TRANSPLANT COORDINATOR.

Sanchismo¹ turns everything it touches to sh*t. I hope more than one person ends up in prison over this case.”

The text of the image from El Mundo² reads:

[Main Headline]

Christian Lawyers sues the doctor who processed Noelia’s euthanasia for being the transplant coordinator.

[Sub-headline]

The organisation accuses the doctor of “an alleged crime of malfeasance and conflict of interest.”

In drilling into this a little further, I found out that the doctor referred to above (together with one other person) was already the subject of some sort of lawsuit or complaint, as reported in November 2025 by another Spanish mainstream newspaper:

The article (machine-translated) reads:

The ultraconservative Catholic platform Christian Lawyers has succeeded in getting the courts to investigate two members of the committee that approved the euthanasia of Noelia, a 24-year-old paraplegic woman who requested assisted dying.

A ruling by Barcelona’s Court of Instruction Number 20 has accepted the lawsuit filed by the association for the alleged crimes of falsifying public documents and abuse of power, and has ordered preliminary proceedings against the defendants, who will have to give statements in Administrative Court Number 12. The judge does not explain the reason for the investigation, simply requesting the “clarification” of the facts.

Christian Lawyers argues that two members of the Catalan Guarantee and Evaluation Commission raised their alleged disagreement in order to bring the case before the commission, where it was decided that assisted dying could be practised. On social media, the association’s president, Polonia Castellanos, stated: “We are going to do everything possible to prevent [euthanasia] from taking place,” after concluding that the two professionals, listed as alternate members, “falsified” the report.

The truth is that these two experts, who were responsible for making a decision, forced the case to be resolved by the full commission, which voted unanimously in favour of assisted dying, with all 19 members voting in favour. Their objective was none other than to further strengthen the guarantees of the process, according to sources familiar with the events. The lawsuit was filed against six members of the commission, but the open investigation is focused on only two of them.

Noelia suffers from “severe dependency, chronic and debilitating pain and suffering” after attempting suicide by jumping from a fifth-floor window in 2022, according to the commission’s report. She herself stated at the trial that “every day is horrible and painful.” But the case remains mired in legal proceedings after the body responsible for ensuring the proper application of the law validated euthanasia in July 2024, a decision that was subsequently challenged in court. An initial court ruling allowed the procedure, setting it for August 2, 2024, before it was halted by an appeal filed by Christian Lawyers, representing her father.

The High Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) upheld the sentence last September, but that judicial decision is also awaiting a final ruling from the Supreme Court. The case falls within the bounds of the law, but the TSJC gave the father the option to appeal, and Christian Lawyers, who represent him, announced their intention to do so. The Supreme Court’s decision will not only affect the case of the young woman Noelia, but could also legitimise similar requests from other parents. This case is the first to go to trial in Spain concerning the provision of assisted dying.

Fast forward to 31 March, when Abogados Cristianos filed a further complaint, as reported here:

The English translation reads:

Noelia Castillo Ramos Euthanasia: Christian Lawyers Sue Doctor Who Processed It

The Spanish Foundation of Christian Lawyers has filed a complaint against the doctor who processed the euthanasia for Noelia Castillo Ramos. The “death with dignity” procedure took place last Thursday, 26 March.

What is the doctor who processed Noelia Castillo Ramos’s euthanasia accused of? The organisation filed its lawsuit in a Barcelona court, accusing the responsible physician of alleged malfeasance (prevarication). They are targeting the specialist because she “simultaneously served as a transplant coordinator” at the Consorci Sanitari Alt Penedès-Garraf.

“This dual role creates a structural and insurmountable conflict of interest, as the same professional tasked with assessing whether the patient’s death should proceed had a direct institutional interest in obtaining organs,” they stated in a press release.

They argue that the expert “handwrote the euthanasia request,” including a point stating that the young woman allegedly “wished to be an organ and tissue donor.” However, the organisation believes it was not Noelia who recorded this, but the doctor herself. Furthermore, they emphasise that the doctor was not the one who usually treated the young woman.

“Noelia revoked the organ donation listed in the initial request at the last moment,” they added, which they consider evidence of irregularities. Finally, they noted that Noelia postponed the procedure by one hour to spend more time with her family, which they believe demonstrates “fluctuations in her will.”

It is quite astonishing to me that someone involved in the euthanasia procedure should also act as a transplant co-ordinator. Even if the proposed reason for this is that it was a small hospital and overlapping roles are inevitable, surely steps could be taken to bring in people from other regions to create separation of decision-making in such critical and thorny matters.

I accept that the person concerned may not have benefited personally from being both transplant coordinator and having involvement in the euthanasia. However, the point about separation of powers (in any context) is not just about the receipt of tangible benefits; they are there to also (supposedly) protect against the undue influence of certain ideological beliefs.

The eyebrow-raising, however, doesn’t end with this matter, though.

It also turns out that at the time of the euthanasia, the complaint being investigated since November 2025 was actually ongoing and unresolved, as implied by this article on the website of RTVE³:

The translation reads:

The Barcelona Prosecutor’s Office has requested the dismissal of the case against two members of the Healthcare Ethics Committee who authorised the euthanasia of Noelia, the 25-year-old woman from Barcelona who suffered from paraplegia and who finally received assisted death last Thursday, sources from the Public Ministry have informed Europa Press.

The Prosecutor’s Office has requested it from the head of the Court of Instruction number 20 of Barcelona, ​​who is investigating both professionals (a doctor and a lawyer) against whom the Spanish Foundation of Christian Lawyers filed a complaint for alleged crimes of prevarication and falsification of a public document.

According to the complaint, both allegedly admitted in court that they simulated a non-existent disagreement to force the decision to be submitted to the plenary session of the Comissió de Garantia i Avaluació de Catalunya (CGAC), “ thus altering the legally established procedure and administratively shielding the authorisation.”

The Court of Instruction number 20 accepted the complaint for processing in order to obtain the judgment issued by the Administrative Court 12 of Barcelona, ​​which upheld the euthanasia of the young woman and dismissed any irregularities. “This request for testimonies could only be made by accepting the complaint for processing, so that the request for the aforementioned documentation would have legal backing,” so that, once received, it could be forwarded to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to report on the criminal relevance of the facts, as stated in a ruling issued on March 26.

“No evidence of a crime”

The head of the Administrative Court number 12 of Barcelona, ​​who supported Noelia’s euthanasia in a resolution that was later endorsed by the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC), has already ruled out irregularities in the procedure: “No indication of a crime is seen in the actions of the professionals.”

The judge stated that the report from the medical-legal duo indicated, in the lawyer’s comments, that the patient’s suffering generated “doubts” as to whether it could be considered serious, chronic and disabling, as indicated by the Organic Law for the Regulation of Euthanasia (LORE), and therefore issued an unfavourable report.

The members of the duo explained during the trial that, since it was a complex case, they decided that the matter should be brought before the full court, and the judge understood that their actions did not invalidate the proceedings, “since it gives the decision greater guarantees” given that the decision was then taken by all the members of the CGEC, which were 19, and was adopted unanimously.

Obviously, as someone who has zero knowledge of Spanish law or judicial procedures, it’s difficult to get to the nub of what has actually happened here.

Regardless of the merits of the November 2025 complaint, it still seems weird to me that the doctor, whilst still the subject of an ongoing and unresolved complaint, simply carried on pushing the process forward to its ultimate conclusion while wearing the same multiple hats, and now that it is over, the prosecutor seeks to dismiss the case?

The above is just the latest in an increasing number of instances where people have undergone euthanasia for non-terminal and/or psychiatric reasons. Noelia was obviously very young, but a case was recently reported for a teenager:

The circumstances around the case are detailed on pages 47 – 49 of the 2024 report of the Regional Euthanasia Review Committee, which can be found HERE. In that report, the individual is described as follows:

A young man aged between 16 and 18 had been diagnosed around four-and-a-half years before his death with an autism spectrum disorder with anxiety and mood-related problems.

While reading that document, I was surprised to learn that, as of 2024, euthanasia accounted for 5.8% of all deaths in the Netherlands.

The disparity in public discourse is striking; while Canada’s rate is roughly the same and frequently draws heavy criticism, the Netherlands is rarely mentioned in this context.

One other phrase from the report (in the foreword, page 3) caught my attention. While noting a 10% year-on-year increase, the authors state:

At present, all that can be said is that there is no reason to assume that the gradual increase seen in recent years will soon come to a halt.

No concern about this was expressed; in fact, they seem proud of it, and comfortable with an ever-increasing proportion of deaths in their country involving a state-sanctioned medical procedure.  I find that illustrative of a disturbing ideology on several levels.

In the UK, the slippery slope argument was cited as a reason for the dangers of introducing a bill which, on its face, would not have permitted the above type of case, which (currently) seems anathema, even to many supporters of assisted dying legislation in the UK.

Proponents of the bill responded emphasising safeguards against such “mission creep”, but – as can be seen with Canada – the scope of this legislation inevitably ends up being expanded, and never contracted.

One of the under-appreciated features of the very act of introducing assisted dying legislation is that it instils ideological and attitudinal societal changes, so that what was previously unthinkable moves into the realm of being debateable, and then it becomes a “right”, usually based on arguments over “equality.”

Finally, if you haven’t already, I suggest you read my piece: ‘What connects the UK’s new “assisted dying” law with the Nazi’s “Aktion 4” euthanasia programme?’

This piece contains a link to a short (14-minute) AI-generated “deep dive” which does an excellent job of distilling my arguments.

Source: https://theexposenews.com/2026/04/14/shocking-case-of-state-sponsored-euthanasia-in-spain/

Fight the Censorship Join the Hopegirl Mailing List and get my free AudioBook: The QEG Chronicles Free Energy Full Disclosure: https://bit.ly/HGQEGBook

HopeGirl Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@hopegirlblog
HopeGirl Telegram Channel Chat and Groups: https://t.me/Hopegirl587 
Get Our Free EMF Survival Guide : https://bit.ly/FTWEMF
10 Percent Off our EMF Protection Products with this Link: https://www.ftwproject.com/ref/tenoff

The post SHOCKING case of state-sponsored euthanasia in Spain: Euthanasia doctor is also a transplant co-ordinator, who was under investigation for falsifying documents appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

On Friday at 2:35 pm, Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen began his a speech in parliament about the (un)safety and (in)efficacy of the covid gene-based injections. As he did on 13 December when he raised the issue of “vaccine” harms, Bridgen has made another outstanding speech.  It was so outstanding that barely five hours after Mr. Bridgen had finished his speech, YouTube censored Mr. Bridgen’s speech by removing the video from his YouTube channel.

Mr. Bridgen tweeted at 8:18 pm on Friday: “YouTube have taken down the speech I gave in Parliament today. I am an elected member of the UK Parliament. The speech was given in the Chamber of the House of Commons.” At the time of writing his tweet had received 3.6 million views.

.@YouTube have taken down the speech I gave in Parliament today. I am an elected member of the UK Parliament. The speech was given in the Chamber of the House of Commons and responded to by a Government Minister, what chance has anyone else got of putting their views on YouTube? pic.twitter.com/mJWFuVaOhy

— Andrew Bridgen (@ABridgen) March 17, 2023

After a public outcry, YouTube re-instated the video of Mr. Bridgen’s parliamentary speech.

Pleased to see that after such a large public outcry my speech has been reinstated on YouTube.

Power does rest with the people, a salutary lesson for our self appointed masters.https://t.co/Ke8mj4jek4

— Andrew Bridgen (@ABridgen) March 18, 2023

(Un)safe and (In)effective Vaccines

Mr. Bridgen began his speech in parliament by making reference to his December 2022 parliamentary speech about vaccine harms and how the corporate media, the fourth estate, reacted to his speech:

I highlighted to the Minister the scale of harms that the experimental vaccines have caused and continue to cause. In giving that speech to an almost empty Chamber, on this most important of issues—quite literally life and death—two things happened to me immediately. First, I was cancelled by the mainstream media … not one media organisation wanted to talk about the issue of serious harms or deaths occurring as a result of the mRNA vaccines.

[Second.] in the wake of that speech, something far more important has happened. I was contacted by thousands of people offering their support and received many hundreds and hundreds of emails from all around the globe recounting to me their own stories of the harms caused in the wake of their or their loved ones’ covid vaccination.

Despite the media silence, there is huge, enormous and growing interest in this topic. Today, I once again ask the Minister why more is not being done, both in the United Kingdom and globally, to investigate and publicise the clear and well-documented adverse effects of covid-19 vaccines—vaccines that have made big pharma billions, and also vaccines that have resulted in completely unprecedented levels of yellow card reports. The Government’s own data in this respect is damning.

The real-world data from Florida shows that the mRNA vaccines are resulting in vaccine harms disproportionate to the number of vaccines being administered when compared with all previous vaccinations. That backs up the clear warning signal from our own yellow card system in the UK.

Mr. Bridgen highlighted research done by Dr Joseph Fraiman that detailed the frequency of serious adverse events following “vaccination” with both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA injections:

The study confirms that there are 10.1 serious adverse events for every 10,000 Pfizer vaccinations administered. That means that one in every 990 people vaccinated with the Pfizer booster will have a serious adverse event. The risk with the Moderna vaccine is even greater: there are 15.1 serious adverse events for every 10,000 Moderna jabs. That means that one in 662 people vaccinated with the Moderna booster will have a serious adverse event. Combining the data for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA … an average one in 800 chance of a serious adverse event every time someone is boosted.

Mr. Bridgen then highlighted data published by the UK Department of Health and Social Care on 25 January 2023.  He compared in detail and by age group the number of injections that needed to be administered to prevent one case of severe covid against the number of people that would be seriously injured by the injections as a result.

For example, Government’s own data, Mr. Bridgen said, shows that for healthy 40 to 49-year-olds the number of people who needed to be given a “booster” injection to keep one covid patient out of an intensive therapy unit is 932,500 – putting potentially 1,165 people into hospital with serious harms, death or disability as a result of the injection.

And for healthy 30 to 39-year-olds, no one knows the answer to the number needed to be boosted to prevent a serious hospitalisation because the Government’s own data says that there has never been such a case of this age group being put into intensive care due to the current variant of covid-19. But many, indeed on average one in 800 of this group that has been boosted, will have died, or been disabled or seriously harmed by the booster itself.

Even for the most vulnerable group – the over-70s with health problems – the risks are absolutely identical … According to the Government’s own data, it would be necessary to administer 800 vaccine boosters to prevent just one hospitalisation … That means that all the most vulnerable groups in our society are doing by being boosted is swapping one risk from covid of hospitalisation for exactly the same risk from the booster itself.

The Government data not only comments on the efficacy and effectiveness of the autumn booster campaign … but looks forward to this year’s booster campaign. Not unsurprisingly, it predicts the same level of efficacy from the same boosters put into the same arms. Surely, in light of the data, we will not continue with this absolute madness. If we were to perpetuate it, we would be engaging in expensive state-sponsored self-harm on a national level.

You can read the transcript of Mr. Bridgen’s speech in the Hansard HERE.

If YouTube removes the video of Mr. Bridgen’s speech, again, you can watch it on Rumble HERE or on Parliament Live TV HERE.

Shutdown the Ministry of Truth

There’s no indication if YouTube removed Mr. Bridgen’s speech of their own volition or whether they were instructed to do so by an outside authority. But there is no doubt that the censorship regime relies on a close relationship between private and public actors.

In a report ‘Ministry of Truth: the secretive government units spying on your speech’ published in January, Big Brother Watch exposed that government counter-disinformation units had paid contractors over £1m to trawl social media for perceived terms of service violations on selected topics and pass them to government officials.  They also used special relationships with social media companies to recommend content be removed.

Big Brother Watch’s report revealed that secretive Whitehall units have been monitoring government critics’ speech online – including MPs, academics, journalists, human rights campaigners and the public – under the guise of combatting “misinformation.”

The report also exposed the Government’s use of the British Army to scan their own citizens’ speech online, with exclusive testimony from a whistle-blower who worked in the “secretive information warfare machine”, the 77^th Brigade.

Read more: 77th Brigade Exposed: The Secretive UK Military Unit spying on YOU if you can see through the lies

On Thursday, Sir Christopher Chope, Member of Parliament for Christchurch, asked the Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet Office, Alex Burghart: “But why has my hon. Friend refused to admit in answer to parliamentary questions that the rapid response unit collected and stored information on sitting MPs? As my subject access request has confirmed that I was one of those MPs, can he explain why the unit was using taxpayers’ money to snoop on me, who authorised this and why?”

????‍???? “Can he explain why the Rapid Response Unit was using taxpayers’ money to snoop on me?”

Sir Christopher Chope MP demands URGENT answers on the secretive units monitoring those critical of Gov’t policies online.

Help us SHUT DOWN the #MinistryOfTruth⤵️https://t.co/1SWcLViMeo pic.twitter.com/tOUVcqj7IV

— Big Brother Watch (@BigBrotherWatch) March 16, 2023

Burghart responded: “My hon. Friend is welcome to come and have a meeting with me and officials in the Cabinet Office to discuss any concerns that he has about the rapid response unit.”

Sir Christopher, who has been a champion for the vaccine injured in Parliament and not one to be easily deterred, then asked:

Can my hon. Friend assure me that all branches of the Ministry of Truth, which was exposed in the Big Brother Watch report in January, have now been disbanded so that we no longer have Government and taxpayer-funded activity discrediting MPs who hold the Government to account? In answer to the earlier point that was made, can my hon. Friend explain why, in answer to parliamentary question 148802 [from Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP on 20 February], which requested information on whether or not the Government were monitoring MPs, no answer was forthcoming? If it was so innocent, why was no answer forthcoming?

Topical Questions, Hansard, 16 March 2023

To which Burghart, responded: “There is no Ministry of Truth; there is the Cabinet Office. The rapid response unit was disbanded in August last year.”

Disbanded just over five months ago.  So, when was it formed, why was it formed, who formed it and what was its objective?  Why was it analysing social media trends to identify key narratives and themes, and collecting published material on organisations or individuals? To control the narrative, to stifle free speech, to aid in removing our rights and freedoms perhaps?  That it has been disbanded does not nullify what happened nor does it right the wrongs. We don’t want gaslighting, Burghart, we want accountability.  We want those who were and are responsible to be held accountable.

A petition started by human rights campaigner Mark Johnson invites people to join him in standing up for the rights to freedom of speech and privacy in the UK and demand that the government stop spying on us.  His petition states:

Big Brother Watch research has found that secretive government units have been monitoring and recording criticism of the Government on social media. Politicians, academics, campaigners, journalists and even members of the public have been subjected to monitoring by Whitehall officials, and an ‘information warfare machine’ in the British Army. Worryingly, many of these units have a special relationship with social media companies which gives them powers to force the censorship of online speech. The government’s Counter Disinformation Unit censors and monitors dissent, not disinformation, without due process or transparency. It should be shut down.

Source Link: https://expose-news.com/2023/03/19/vaccines-are-engaging-in-state-sponsored-self-harm/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post UK’s booster campaign is engaging in expensive state-sponsored self-harm on a national level, says MP appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.