12 ms·
Spain passes law allowing euthanasia
- mtmail 6y agorelated discussion 12h ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26508084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26508084
- coldtea 6y agoThat's a first step, under the pretext of dignity. Next step: encouraging it. Why pay all those old-ish patients treatment, pensions, or end-of-life care? Encourage the poor to off themselves with "dignity". Coming soon to a modern state near you...
- _Microft 6y agoThis is a slippery slope argument.
- etamponi 6y agoI don't think this is an argument, it's just stating what happens.
- Darmody 6y agoImagine how easy is to manipulate someone in pain, like an elder whose money you're going to inherit. And then you have people who would like to live but don't want to depend on family members for everything. Death on command is the closest thing to Hitler's eugenics.
- GordonS 6y ago> Death on command Precisely nobody is proposing "Death on command". From the article: > ...the person must: > - suffer a "serious or incurable illness" or a "chronic or incapacitating" condition that causes "intolerable suffering" > - be an adult Spanish national or a legal resident > - be "fully aware and conscious" when they make the request, which has to be submitted twice in writing, 15 days apart > A doctor can reject the request if the requirements have not been met. It must be approved by a second medic and by an evaluation body. > Any medic can withdraw on grounds of "conscience" from taking part in the procedure.
- refactor_master 6y agoThe lengths the world has gone to in order to protect the elderly from Corona is at odds with your claim though.
- coldtea 6y agoThe governments / corporations could not care less about "protecting the elderly from Corona". They have privatized care that helped the same elderly from all kinds of even more prevalent conditions in the past. In fact they tried to downplay it at first. Only after Italy's massacre they picked up, and that's for optics, as it became an "arms race" between governments. You can't seem standing when others do something. Plus it was a good chance to increase tech profits, make structural changes they wanted to make, and get a "great reset". And a lot of cushy opportunities for big tenders...
- sergioj97 6y agoThe op talks about what the "next step" will be. And as it hasn't already been, it's clearly speculation and in no way "stating what happens".
- coldtea 6y agoSo? Slippery slopes happen all the time.
- snarfy 6y agoWhen you are dying of stage 4 cancer like my mother was there should be an option. Instead she received a six month prescription for liquid morphine, and they were kind enough to give her the entire bottle without requiring her to get refills. You shouldn't have to off yourself, yet here we are.
- deepersprout 6y agoSo she got the choice. Even if it was given to her in a non offical way.
- GordonS 6y agoAs-is, it's a very dangerous "choice" though. If you were to help someone who was unable to do it themselves, you could do down for a very long time. For Spain in particular, the article states: > Before the law's passage, helping somebody to die in Spain was potentially punishable by a jail term of up to 10 years.
- kaoD 6y agoHere's an actual case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramón_Sampedro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramón_Sampedro > Ramón Sampedro Cameán (5 January 1943 – 12 January 1998) was a Spanish seaman and writer. Sampedro became a quadriplegic at the age of 25 (on 23 August 1968), following a diving accident, and fought for his right to an assisted suicide for the following 29 years. > ... > Sampedro died on Monday 12 January 1998 in Boiro, Spain, from potassium cyanide poisoning.[2] Several days later, his close friend Ramona Maneiro was arrested and charged with assisting his suicide. Sampedro had divided the elements required to complete his suicide into individual tasks, each small enough that no single person could be convicted of assisting the suicide process entirely. Maneiro was released due to lack of evidence. No further charges were ever filed in connection with Sampedro's death. Amenábar (from The Others) depicted the events in a movie (not sure if known outside of Spain). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sea_Inside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sea_Inside
- coldtea 6y ago
- phone8675309 6y agoYou're a fool if you think that part of the elderly population every year doesn't already attempt to commit suicide to avoid being a burden on their family. At least this way, there's a safe option for them to do so that doesn't traumatize whoever finds them.
- deathischeap 6y agoWhy is this being downvoted? I've personally already heard of euthanasia used as a cost savings measure in Canada https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/canada-is-heading-toward-a-human-rights-disaster-for-disabled-people/2021/02/19/01cbfca4-7232-11eb-85fa-e0ccb3660358_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/canada-is-heading-tow... Why would this be different in Spain? Why should a socialized health system spend so much money over decades keeping unproductive people alive? Euthanasia will offer so many savings to the taxpayer! I'm also not sure why I've been flagged within seconds of making this comment. This is an opposing view with a citation. I'm not being abusive or even offensive. This site has some of the absolute worst censorship and the most ideologically biased commentariat this side of Reddit. In fact, this board is just an arrogant subreddit at this point.
- otikik 6y agoYour arguments sound incredibly similar to those of anti-abortists. The arguments against are also very similar. Namely: same as people considering an abortion, people considering ending their life are in an incredibly difficult spot, and what they need is more options and help, not less.
- dathos 6y agoMy partner works in geriatric care, I doubt you realize how many old people are lonely and would take this way out if they could. But that's not what this law does right, this gives people who are suffering intolerably an option to not suffer any more. In this case it's not just about dignity it's about leaving their living nightmare.
- aseerdbnarng 6y agoMy brother in-law works for the NHS. In every hospital and in every year, he's seen countless cases of families dropping their elderly relatives off for no reason other than to go off on holiday. The chance this law wont be used maliciously is zero.
- _Microft 6y agoHow many families who did not do this did he not see? This is the selection effect in all its glory.
- throwaway8581 6y agoThere’s no claim being made that it’s a huge percentage. All that’s required is for it to be a large number for the post’s concern to make sense.
- petercooper 6y agoSure, and a lot of freedoms or well intended legal provisions are used "maliciously." Because of the potential to misuse freedoms, should we not have them at all? This is a freedom for which many, including myself, may eventually benefit versus the alternative. I may want to make such a choice for myself (hopefully many years into the future!) rather than live in agony and I really hope the option will at least be there for me in my country.
- GordonS 6y agoThis is a good point - we can't be scared of everything on the basis it might be misused. The challenge is to have proper regulation, with the right checks and balances in place - I don't think anyone is suggesting you can just rock up to your local euthanasia corner-shop and say "can I haz dead pls?".
- sergioj97 6y agoWell there are certainly many freedoms that we restrict or completely deny just because of the potential to misuse them (e.g. freedom to own a gun). I don't think this is the case though, and I agree with all of your second paragraph. But I do think (and it seems that) potential to misuse a freedom is sometimes enough to restrict it, even completely.
- Darmody 6y agoThe left has been fighting for this over the last years. They finally managed to pass their law of death. Suicide on demand. Al this while palliative care is not given to those who need it. Only 40% of them do receive some kind of treatment to relieve their pain. Guess what the other 60% will think about now...
- Tabular-Iceberg 6y agoAnd palliative care given to those who aren't actually dying, but are just too old for anyone to care.
- phone8675309 6y agoIt's not really on demand if there's a 15 day waiting period between request and action.
- wolfhumble 6y agoI remember that I heard a representative of the Spanish government on the radio talk about the 'urgency' of implementing this law after winning the last election. Hundreds of thousands of people struggle just to get by in their everyday lives, and the urgency is allowing euthanasia? Why the urgency; doesn't the shadows of euthanasia stand the piercing Sun of Righteousness?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- danielovichdk 6y agoI dont want to live if it hurts too much. I am pretty clear on death and it is simply foolish not to think pretty hard on how it is a big part of life. If you wish to die because you are in such a pain, no problem.
- throwaway8581 6y agoVery sad to see a Catholic country go down this path. All human life has dignity, and it is always wrong to end your own life.
- mejutoco 6y agoSpain has a catholic history, but is is officially aconfesional (it is in the constitution)
- otherme123 6y agoSpain (I'm spaniard) is passively catholic. Catholic church is everywhere, but you will struggle to find people less than 60 year old going to Mass. Except for the typical extremes, people here has, generally speaking, a "live and let live" mentality. For example, the latests polls show over 70% of people pro-euthanasia and only 15% against it. Another poll shows that around 75% of the people declares themselves catholic. So when you picture a "Catholic Spain", imagine a lot of people that were born into a religion, they recognize themselves as catholic, but couldn't care less. This is a good place to live your religion or atheism in peace.
- mejutoco 6y agoI did not make any point with how prevalent Catholicism is in Spain, or any personal observation on it. I was correcting the original comment, because it is a common misunderstanding. Spain is not officially catholic, and this is explicitly stated in the spanish constitution (Art. 16 section 3.) https://app.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/titulos/articulos.jsp?ini=16&tipo=2 https://app.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/titulos/a...
- otherme123 6y agoAnd I was adding to your point that is not only that Spain is officially secular, but also that the society is quite relaxed about religion. I find Spain quite different from Turkey, for example, which is officially secular but the society is not.
- simonswords82 6y agoBlows my mind that we will give animals the right to a humane end of life and yet here I am sat in a "civilised" country (UK) and it's illegal to give humans that same out. I watched my Dad die of cancer - and for the last week it was simply inhumane that we didn't let him die sooner through a cocktail of drugs. Others who have watched their loved ones die slow painful deaths will broadly agree. Besides, people can still kill themselves regardless of laws. They can take their own lives in various gruesome ways. They can also fly to a euthanasia centre like Dignitas. LAws were supposed to protect people from each other, not from ourselves. It's about time all governments reconsidered their laws on euthanasia.
- throwaway525142 6y agoHm, I think there are also laws that protect adults from themselves.
- simonswords82 6y agoI agree. And there should not be.
- breakfastduck 6y agoWell I can't say I agree to that. On what basis?
- leetcrew 6y agodo you own your own body? if not, who does? a related question: do we really seek to protect others from harming themselves, or merely to protect ourselves from having to watch?
- breakfastduck 6y agoYes, but I'm mentally well. If I was having severe mania or a psychotic episode, the legal frameworks we have in place would allow me to be sectioned to prevent me causing harm to myself and others. Surely that is a worthwhile law?
- jgsbhfvcsf 6y agoIf you post an opinion against euthanasia someone flags your comment instantly. That's should tell you everything you need to know about proponents of state killings
- breakfastduck 6y agoThe fact people are willing to argue against it and thus are arguing for forcing those with chronic pain and terminal illnesses to continue suffering tells you everything you need to know about them, too.
- dang 6y agoPlease don't do this here. We're trying to avoid the online shaming/callout culture, which takes the importance of an issue as justification for going straight to personal attack. That way doesn't build community, and more importantly (for HN), it leads to much less interesting discussion, the way that scorched earth is less interesting than a thriving ecosystem. Obviously there is room for different points of view about a topic as deep as this one.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dang 6y agoI'm sure you're right that the discussion here has more people on one side than the other, but if you react by lashing out in this way, you're creating the situation you're complaining about. Having skimmed this thread I'm mostly not seeing coherent arguments against the law, but rather comments like this one ("proponents of state killings"), invoking Hitler and so on—in other words, extraneous provocations that are more than enough to justify downvotes and flags. It's pretty common for people to misattribute the reason why their comment was downvoted or flagged, and then draw wrong conclusions from that. The typical image is something like "I, the noble freethinker with principled thoughts, being suppressed by the slavish mob", when in reality the post included some tawdry swipe. The grandiose narrative always leaves out the tawdry swipe. It makes sense that people do this—you're far from the only one—because it's extremely uncomfortable to be surrounded by hostility. Even in a rather silly place like an internet forum, it still activates survival systems in us. But since that only recharges the problem, we all need to learn how to bring more awareness to these interactions. On issues where the community is lopsided, the person holding the contrarian position has a greater responsibility, if we're to avoid total flamewar [1]. That may not be fair, but the reasons are rooted in human nature and not going away, so we have to deal with it. If your minority view is right but you present it in a lashing-out way, the actual effect you're having is to discredit it further [2]. That helps no one. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [1] I've written about this many times, some of which can be found here: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20contrarian%20-dynamic&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=truth%20discredit%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dempseye 6y agoEuthanasia happens all the time already in countries where it is illegal. It just happens at the end of life, and it is ethically justified as a secondary effect of supplying necessary pain relief. But everybody knows that people are hurried along using a legal and ethical sleight of hand.
- pilom 6y agoThe reductum ad absurdum argument for assisted suicide had been decent at converting many skeptics I've talked to: There once was a man who fought in Vietnam who was burned by napalm. He had 2nd and 3rd degree burns over almost his entire body, lost both arms, both legs, eyes, ears and most of his mouth. And yet he survived for weeks in agony, a literal hell on earth, typing out "kill me" in morse code with his head. Surely, this person should be allowed to end his life as even people of faith should see this as a worse state than hell. Therefore if this person should be allowed, then we just need to determine where the line is, not if it should be legal or not.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- TrackerFF 6y agoGood. Watched the father of my friend suffer late-stage through end-stage COPD, which lasted around 4 years. The last year, he was confined to his bed, and needed 24/7 care to do pretty much anything. He simply could not move any distance himself, without passing out. Nor could he sleep, without feeling like drowning. As you can imagine, his life quality was inhumanely low. Both him, and his son/my friend, agreed that there should have been some easier way out. "Luckily" he went out with a heart-attack, just as things started to get very bad. It's a difficult topic. On one side, you have religious people with very negative views, and on the other side, you have medical professionals whos oath contradicts the action of assisted suicide.
- bengale 6y agoTheres a lot of talk about terminal illnesses and people dying in pain, but my Grandad would most certainly choose to die with dignity now and he isn't in a situation like that at all. He talks about it a lot, he's had a good life and now he's essentially decrepit. He can't really hear anything anymore so conversations are frustrating, he has no balance so can't really go far, he gets tired even just being taken for a drive, he gets sore sitting in front of the TV all day, he gains weight because he's not moving so he has to be careful about anything he eats. he has a type of dementia that thankfully hasnt stripped who he is, but has removed his ability to complete complex tasks or really anything more than a few steps. So now he can't use a laptop anymore, he can't login to any of his banking, he can't text or really use a mobile phone at all. When he asks me what the point is I have no answer for him, he's lucky in many ways as he's got enough money to live in a comfortable flat, and cover all of his bills, etc. But he's not happy, and is sitting in that chair waiting, many times wishing, to die. He essentially played the role of my father when I was growing up, I used to utterly dread the day he passed, but now I can't help thinking I'll feel relief for him more than anything. I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to gather the family, take him to place where we can all say our goodbyes and let him go on his own terms, with dignity.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- motohagiography 6y agoEven as someone who believes people have the freedom to take their own lives and can morally request help to do so to end suffering, a dimension to this is modern treatments for terminal illnesses can keep you alive long enough to suffer so much that someone else has to make the active decision to end it. That is to say, medically assisted dying often merely solves a problem that medicine and treatment itself created. While I respect the principle of religious objections to assisted dying, if they don't extend to assisted life extension as well, I can't assign them much weight. There should be some serendipity to dying, and the religious objection seems to be about people making a decision that should be left to the sacred. To compensate for this decision problem and the risks of non-consensual assisted suicide by a variety of legalistic players, a better solution could be to just liberalize rules on opioid pain killers for terminal pain management and improve self administration technology and management of the drugs.
- oleander73 6y ago> liberalize rules on opioid pain killers for terminal pain management and improve self administration technology and management of the drugs The same people who argue against euthanasia are against this as well. Opioid pain killers are explicitly rationed in such a way that they make it very hard to "overdose". To me this is cruel and insane, but many people are apparently so afraid of death that won't even allow others in horrible pain to choose death.
- wrongdonf 6y agoThe human brain does not process all things equally. It does not take the chain of integrations, leading from input of data to output of some opinion or intuition, as far as it might unless it sees fit, regardless of what you want. I had thought about this right-to-die issue many times. But in the first few seconds of being in the position of needing to die, an new understanding washed over me, new angles and insights, and a decade of contemplation was overturned. When the need to die is not emotional but totally objective, one assesses his options rationally and weighs the different methods against each other in a pragmatic way. As I looked at each path I might take, new details filled in that I had never thought of before. Each method of suicide is different, has a different risk of going wrong, a different outcome in the case of going wrong. And each is different for the burden left to those who have to clean up. But what difference does any of it make if you are ultimately going to die? When you enter into this situation you are playing a game where becoming a lifelong vegetable is a possibility — this is a nightmare scenario. When its you, it becomes real to you and you understand that vegetables can be lucid, have the capacity for immense suffering and are kept alive against their will possibly for decades. Many people read that and arrogantly say “well if I just shoot myself in the head then that’s not a problem.” But did that person know that shooting yourself in the temple might only destroy the part of the brain responsible for executive function, rendering you a vegetable? The proper way is to shoot yourself with the barrel against the back of the mouth so that the brain stem is destroyed and there is no possibility of living. That is the terrifying realization that comes to you when it’s your turn: this is like anything else, it’s a practical undertaking where there are details and things to go wrong and the only way to ensure a good result is to do it many times or be in the hands of an expert, neither of which are on the table. It’s a lot of stress. The ultimate goal is to avoid suffering, and that includes being comfortable during a successful attempt, not just avoiding the I-have-no-mouth of being a vegetable. When it’s your turn, you all of a sudden realize that the brain remains active during and after the process of dying. And sure enough you will find the inconvenient fact buried: nobody is really dead until they are thoroughly dead. The idea of binary life/death only proliferated because for most of history science wasn’t around to illuminate the issue. You realize that people who are clinically dead are the most powerless, voiceless group of people in history and that their needs have been completely hidden or ignored even in the age of modern medicine, and that this weird and unfortunate situation has intersected with your story now and has completely fucked you over. You are tasked with cobbling together some kind of system that not only intelligently avoids the vegetable outcome, not only confronts the subtleties of what it really means to die and avoiding whatever strange things happen in the space between, but also performs flawlessly with an extremely low probability of failure. Because when it’s your skin that’s what you’ll want. And of course this is the perfect situation for some kind of solution to have been developed. We often benefit from things that were developed over hundreds of years of trial and error. To realize you are at the bottom rung of that process is unpleasant. And you won’t until it becomes real to you. The number of people who have a rational need for death, beyond and kind of doubt, is small at any given moment. It’s a minority group. Easy to sweep under the rug especially when the average person is not imaginative or able to think empathetically or creatively. Not able to understand until it’s them. I guess I’m guilty of that!