The world has not evolved into a place that is safer and more fair minded, it has become bastardised to suit a few greedy politicians, aided by judges and law makers.
Somewhere in the trials of history show we don’t learn from lessons, but that a small few get obscenely rich by keeping us dumb.
I find the doctor's connection to be suspicious but I'm not sure how the Spanish national healthcare system works.
However, I support the choice of the patient as long as it's voluntary.
If she decided to do it, that's her choice and the irony is that the outraged want to take away that choice which is no different than having the state tell you what to do.
They didn't force her into this. She wanted it.
If she's have had mental issues that weren't improving, living life is like torture. I've known people with issues like this and some committed suicide in a horrible manner.
One can still accept the concept of free choice, yet at the same time understand that whether a choice is actually free is determined by the forces and control systems in place.
My main concern about assisted dying legislation is that it places certain powers in the hands of institutions, which have done nothing lately to alleviate my concerns that these powers can be abused for nefarious ends.
"in a horrible manner"? Some would say this young lady committed (with assistance) suicide "in a horrible manner." Pretty subjective, I suppose. Like the Nazis killed some of their victims "in a horrible manner"; others they killed nicely? Sure, why not.
A thorny problem since self-ownership is the very bedrock of individual freedom. There is probably no perfect solution but the optimal answer may be to completely separate medical care from government. Those that seek a peaceful and painless exit should be able to do so but are often prevented from doing so by laws such as the restrictions on drugs and the need to obtain medical approval. There are plenty of organizations available to counsel and/or attempt to present alternatives to those suffering sufficient pain to make them consider suicide. But no third party should have the right to force them to refrain from their free choice.
Ah yes, self-ownership... which presumably means I have the right to sell myself? (My self? My 'self'? Indeed. Quite right. Bedrock something something, yadda yadda, I assure you...)
I suppose everyone has an absolute right to a peaceful and painless exit; oh, and also, of course, to a peaceful and painless life prior to exit. Utopia now! Give me utopia, or give me death! (Or is that all a bunch of contrived BS? Maybe life/existence is not like that? "But it's my right!" Well, but is it now? A contentious claim.)
Unfortunately six years ago nearly everyone involved in medicine proved their sociopathy and indifference to life. MAID and similar policies should be assumed to be motivated by that same sociopathy until proven otherwise. Just going by the Wikipedia entry on Ramos’ case, though, it took a lot of time, a lot of appeals, and a lot of persistence for her to get what she wanted. She made a formal request in 2024 and it was approved in July, 2024. It wasn’t until January of 2026 that her father’s final appeal was rejected by the European Court of Human Rights. In between, his appeals were heard by courts in Catalonia and Barcelona. The article is a little unclear but it sounds like at least four courts heard her father’s requests to prevent the procedure. She had offers by people willing to pay for her mental and physical health care. And she gave a TV interview just before she died. It doesn’t sound like she was incompetent.
Maybe she knew better than anyone else what she could live with. Maybe she thought that no amount of mental health care could teach her how to live with the memory of sexual assaults. Maybe she would have thought differently in five or ten years, but she was an adult, she had a lot of time to reconsider, and it was her life to do with as she pleased. The fact that she persisted after spending so much time and energy on the court cases her father brought suggests that her decision was anything but ill-considered. I think the real danger of euthanasia is in not confining it to the purview of private groups that exist outside the sociopathic culture of professional medicine.
No, I get that. What I’m trying (maybe unsuccessfully) to convey here and in other pieces I’ve written on this topic is the “unhealthy enthusiasm” for the procedure and the absolute determination to vilify any dissenters.
In the UK, for example, we saw a number of underhand tactics employed by the proponents to curtail Parliamentary debate over certain, seemingly common-sense, safeguards.
I agree, which is why I think the process is best left privatized.
Given her circumstances I think it’s a strange case for Spain’s euthanasia opponents to cling to as problematic. It seems to be the reverse. The articles translated from Spanish emphasize that a transplant coordinator was involved and raise a lot of valid concerns, but in Ramos’ case none of it seems relevant. She persisted for over a year. She wasn’t incompetent or mentally impaired in a legal sense, so regardless of what kind of doctor signed off on her request or even whether the doctor lied about certain points, it was still Ramos’ request. The extra hour she spent with her family doesn’t suggest waffling to me. It suggests someone compassionately trying to help her family cope with her decision. Maybe that’s reading too much into it, but she was always free to change her mind—and she changed it about the organ donation.
I can appreciate a lot of objections when the government gets involved in the process, but in this specific case I’m just not seeing a problem.
The world has not evolved into a place that is safer and more fair minded, it has become bastardised to suit a few greedy politicians, aided by judges and law makers.
Somewhere in the trials of history show we don’t learn from lessons, but that a small few get obscenely rich by keeping us dumb.
I find the doctor's connection to be suspicious but I'm not sure how the Spanish national healthcare system works.
However, I support the choice of the patient as long as it's voluntary.
If she decided to do it, that's her choice and the irony is that the outraged want to take away that choice which is no different than having the state tell you what to do.
They didn't force her into this. She wanted it.
If she's have had mental issues that weren't improving, living life is like torture. I've known people with issues like this and some committed suicide in a horrible manner.
Why are we against choice?
One can still accept the concept of free choice, yet at the same time understand that whether a choice is actually free is determined by the forces and control systems in place.
My main concern about assisted dying legislation is that it places certain powers in the hands of institutions, which have done nothing lately to alleviate my concerns that these powers can be abused for nefarious ends.
Any system that punishes someone for not doing MAID removes choice.
I've heard about that in Canada but am unsure of how Spain and Europe does it.
"in a horrible manner"? Some would say this young lady committed (with assistance) suicide "in a horrible manner." Pretty subjective, I suppose. Like the Nazis killed some of their victims "in a horrible manner"; others they killed nicely? Sure, why not.
Just so sickening.
A thorny problem since self-ownership is the very bedrock of individual freedom. There is probably no perfect solution but the optimal answer may be to completely separate medical care from government. Those that seek a peaceful and painless exit should be able to do so but are often prevented from doing so by laws such as the restrictions on drugs and the need to obtain medical approval. There are plenty of organizations available to counsel and/or attempt to present alternatives to those suffering sufficient pain to make them consider suicide. But no third party should have the right to force them to refrain from their free choice.
Ah yes, self-ownership... which presumably means I have the right to sell myself? (My self? My 'self'? Indeed. Quite right. Bedrock something something, yadda yadda, I assure you...)
I suppose everyone has an absolute right to a peaceful and painless exit; oh, and also, of course, to a peaceful and painless life prior to exit. Utopia now! Give me utopia, or give me death! (Or is that all a bunch of contrived BS? Maybe life/existence is not like that? "But it's my right!" Well, but is it now? A contentious claim.)
From the “If it saves just one life” faction.
Unfortunately six years ago nearly everyone involved in medicine proved their sociopathy and indifference to life. MAID and similar policies should be assumed to be motivated by that same sociopathy until proven otherwise. Just going by the Wikipedia entry on Ramos’ case, though, it took a lot of time, a lot of appeals, and a lot of persistence for her to get what she wanted. She made a formal request in 2024 and it was approved in July, 2024. It wasn’t until January of 2026 that her father’s final appeal was rejected by the European Court of Human Rights. In between, his appeals were heard by courts in Catalonia and Barcelona. The article is a little unclear but it sounds like at least four courts heard her father’s requests to prevent the procedure. She had offers by people willing to pay for her mental and physical health care. And she gave a TV interview just before she died. It doesn’t sound like she was incompetent.
Maybe she knew better than anyone else what she could live with. Maybe she thought that no amount of mental health care could teach her how to live with the memory of sexual assaults. Maybe she would have thought differently in five or ten years, but she was an adult, she had a lot of time to reconsider, and it was her life to do with as she pleased. The fact that she persisted after spending so much time and energy on the court cases her father brought suggests that her decision was anything but ill-considered. I think the real danger of euthanasia is in not confining it to the purview of private groups that exist outside the sociopathic culture of professional medicine.
No, I get that. What I’m trying (maybe unsuccessfully) to convey here and in other pieces I’ve written on this topic is the “unhealthy enthusiasm” for the procedure and the absolute determination to vilify any dissenters.
In the UK, for example, we saw a number of underhand tactics employed by the proponents to curtail Parliamentary debate over certain, seemingly common-sense, safeguards.
I agree, which is why I think the process is best left privatized.
Given her circumstances I think it’s a strange case for Spain’s euthanasia opponents to cling to as problematic. It seems to be the reverse. The articles translated from Spanish emphasize that a transplant coordinator was involved and raise a lot of valid concerns, but in Ramos’ case none of it seems relevant. She persisted for over a year. She wasn’t incompetent or mentally impaired in a legal sense, so regardless of what kind of doctor signed off on her request or even whether the doctor lied about certain points, it was still Ramos’ request. The extra hour she spent with her family doesn’t suggest waffling to me. It suggests someone compassionately trying to help her family cope with her decision. Maybe that’s reading too much into it, but she was always free to change her mind—and she changed it about the organ donation.
I can appreciate a lot of objections when the government gets involved in the process, but in this specific case I’m just not seeing a problem.
She wasn't euthanized. Euthanasia is a mercy killing.