Blows 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.
> Blows 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.
This is because we value human life more than animal life.
This philosophical view is summarized by "Kantianism for people, Utilitarianism for animals." From this perspective, human life is an end-in-itself and animal life is not.
People who have this perspective (including me) feel that there is no scientific, empirical reason to value human life at all. Therefore putting the value of human life in utilitarian terms doesn't make sense and will lead to a devaluation of human life.
Why do you characterize voluntarily ending ones own life, in particular for people who are incurably sick as utilitarian?
We're not talking about turning grandma into soylent because the bills are getting too large, we're talking about two things first and foremost. Human dignity, and human autonomy over one's own body.
I can agree that euthanasia available for everyone for some sort of social or cost reason devalues life, but very few people are arguing this and it's not what the debate is about right now.
For example in Switzerland (we have euthanasia for years), you must be psychologically healthy, and express the wish to die for yourself, and you need a good point. But our health-system/social-system is also ~pretty good (so no need for grandma to lighten the burden on the family). I think it's great and i am pretty proud about this particular point in Switzerland.
> Why do you characterize voluntarily ending ones own life, in particular for people who are incurably sick as utilitarian?
Because most arguments for euthanasia (in this thread and elsewhere) argue for maximizing utility/minimizing suffering.
> We're not talking about turning grandma into soylent because the bills are getting too large, we're talking about two things first and foremost. Human dignity, and human autonomy over one's own body.
Why not turn grandma into soylent? Doesn't cannibalism maximize utility? How can we cremate grandma when people around the world are starving?
What if the reason we don't eat each other is also the reason we shouldn't euthansize people?
> I can agree that euthanasia available for everyone for some sort of social or cost reason devalues life, but very few people are arguing this and it's not what the debate is about right now.
The post I responded to is saying "let's treat humans more like dogs". So, from my perspective, you aren't quite grasping what this debate is about.
>the post I responded to is saying "let's treat humans more like dogs". So, from my perspective, you aren't quite grasping what this debate is about.
The OP was saying that we give dogs more rights than people, not that dogs are worth less than humans. OP was saying we treat animals more dignified and with more compassion at the end of life than we treat ourselves, which is true ironically enough.
And sorry but what are you on about exactly? What has end of life euthanasia to do with cannibalism? Who is advocating we allow cannibalism or comparing it to euthanasia?
Dogs don't have a right to euthanasia. Dog owners have a right to kill their pets for particular reasons, and livestock owners in general have a right to kill their animals for food and kill 'pests' to protect their livestock.
Most importantly, dogs have no way to deny being euthanized.
In general, humans have more rights given to allow them to stay alive than pets do.
Saying dogs can be killed by their owners so dogs have more rights than people doesn't make sense. If humans had owners, the owners could probably kill them too.
Disclaimer:
In case, it somehow is confused that I'm accused of advocating for slavery, murder, euthanasia, etc. then let it be known that I am not. I think life is an end into itself, and thus ought to be protected.
Some animals are especially deserving of your Kantianism. Particularly Beavers and Lemurs. Did you know Peter Singer proposes exactly the thing you fear?
Obviously, part of the problem is that it's a very politically ugly topic. People hate thinking about death so much that they put off writing their wills until the day they actually die, after all!
With that being said, there are rational arguments against euthanasia. You need to be extremely careful with creating legal ways to kill people. Recall what governments have tended to do in the past when given power over, for example, forced sterilization or forced institutional commitment. Now imagine what can happen with a hostile actor in the mix... rightfully a scary proposition!
I'm not against euthanasia, despite my counterarguments, but I do believe that this is the kind of thing that should be a constitutional right afforded to the individual and not a power that may be exercised over you by anyone else (not even by proxy or process). The stakes are simply too high, because there are no take-backs if someone screws up.
I do believe that this is the kind of thing that should be a constitutional right afforded to the individual and not a power that may be exercised over you by anyone else (not even by proxy or process).
Some power a government can exercise is toat least prevent life insurance companies from putting suicide clauses into plans. These clauses withhold paying out benefits due to suicide.
That on its own is an interesting problem, isn't it?
If you insure a car, then crash it for the payout, we would consider that insurance fraud. We make it against the law, because it has a negative externality in the form of making everyone else's insurance rates higher.
In principle, suicide clauses exist for the same reason. If they didn't exist, you would actually be incentivizing people to kill themselves and raising insurance premiums for everyone else. These are both bad things that most people would want to avoid. Then again, it's not like you can kill yourself twice, so, unlike car insurance fraud, this is a self-solving problem!
My gut tells me that awarding life insurance payouts to families of suicide victims is the wrong tool for this particular problem. Perhaps the government itself should insure individuals against family suicides? This would avoid creating undue drag upon the private insurance market while also ensuring that even poor families (those I suspect are most vulnerable to losing a bread-winner to suicide) are protected. Since the two systems are now decoupled, you could even independently disincentivize suicides for financial security by making the payout lower than a normal life-insurance payout typically would be.
> along with the consent of the patient and/or family responsible for care decisions, doesn’t seem that complicated to me
Dead people can't testify. If someone is euthanized, how do you show--after the fact--that the consent wasn't coerced? This is a problem that can be solved. But it is thorny, complicated and thus difficult.
Cultural Inertia is a powerful thing. As a parallel, docking a dog's tail, clipping its ears, or declawing a cat is considered inhumane, but routine neonatal circumcision is accepted and defended. Why would an aesthetic modification be unethical on a pet animal, but encouraged for an infant human? If something is culturally accepted as normal, it's a lot harder to critically examine it.
I tend to find acceptance of neonatal circumcision and declawing in the same societies.
To me it's pretty simple; unless it's medically necessary you don't do anything (in the context of irreversible medical procedures) against a creature's will. Be it human or otherwise.
My grandpa fell down the stairs of their farm in his sixties. He was paralyzed and needed help with everything. He slowly developed cancer over time but was forced to just lay in bed. All he did was beg for pain pills and to be set free. He complained that a sick animal on the farm would be put down but no one would help him. It was very heart breaking for a young kid to see. I get why no one grant his wish: no one wants to be the one to "kill" him and the (false) hope of a miracle. This is a complex issue: we already have DNR which seem to break the same "do no harm" ethics for a doctor.
Medical ethics require patient consent for treatment. Consent can be assumed in some limited and temporary circumstances but if a patient of sound mind explicitly withdraws consent like with a DNR order then ethically the doctor can't intervene.
The "do no harm" principle only comes into play after consent has been established.
This is a good documentary on the efforts of the Right to Die movement in Oregon a decade ago.[0]
In it, there’s a woman with cancer who clearly enjoys living. She’s active, she participates in the world, she goes on despite her illness… until there’s no ability to experience joy.
Her body is being destroyed. She has a protrusion the size of a football in her midsection. She literally can’t function at a base level. Only then does she opt to end her life. She didn’t give up. She fought until she had no fight left.
Also contained within are obscene images of “pro-life” advocates fighting furiously to force people to suffer until the bitter end. They think themselves moral and just. They are, in fact, barbaric. It so angers me that religious people and institutions would inflict their beliefs on others in such a cruel way.
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.
to an extent yes. I think there is some value in having a "cool-off period". many problems in life do not seem so bad a year, a month, or even a week later. but there are also people who are physically well but live their entire lives in misery. I don't think our current system treats them humanely.
We do give people the option to be euthanized, they just have to commit a really horrific crime first, and it make take a while for all the paperwork to go through after that, but eventually you will get euthanized.
Should it really blow your mind though? Most western governments (including the UK & Spain) are heavily influenced by a religion where one of the commandments is Thou shalt not kill, and this is taken literally by many. Governments are also funded by the living.
If someone kills themselves (regardless of laws), they could forfeit some benefits of a "natural" death, like life assurance benefits (and I'm sure life assurance companies have some sway over the government regulation with regards to this).
I'm sure those considering suicide wouldn't be considering this, but this is the type of things where only governments can get involved to make a positive change for people's lives.
Theres 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.
My 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.
We have Euthanasia in The Netherlands for decades but there hasn't been any evidence of abuse as far as I can tell.
There have been some cases where there was prosecution of doctors because of protocol violations.
But I can't recall any 'abuse' of killing of elderly people for the inheritance.
The reality is that nothing is fool-proof. In theory anything ever can be abused.
But the risk of harm vs. the risk of benefit is too great in favour of the benefit.
That's why we drive cars even though they kill 40K+ people a year in the USA.
So I don't think the theoretical risk of abuse is a good reason to not allow Euthanasia.
Edit: In The Netherlands, each case of Euthanasia / request for assisted suicide is evaluated by multiple doctors / psychiatrists. Each case has to be reported to a special Euthanasia commission that will also verify if things were done right. We don't go over it lightly.
That responsibility of doctors/psychiatrists to evaluate the case for allowing an individual's choice to die must weigh heavily at times. I remember the case from two years ago of a teenager who, because of an awful childhood, was mortally depressed and chose to die. UK news report [1].
In fact, in recent years a slippery slope has been entered, particularly with the decision of the Hoge Raad (21 April 2020) that euthanasia can be legal if a declaration has been made in writing, but the patient resists at the actual fulfilling of the request.
Also, political party D'66 is now pushing for the right for someone to end their life if they consider it "completed", without there being any serious suffering.
Note that not only the christian parties, but also the Socialist Party is very critical about broadening the criteria for euthanasia.
Even if someone with dementia is occasionally killed against their will (whatever that even means), this is an incredibly small price to pay to reduce the suffering of the people suffering from dementia who want to be euthanized.
I doubt they just created a law for this and just walked away. According to this [^1] news article made in 2019, of the 62000 cases of euthanasia there were 15 that might not have been what the patient wanted. In only 3 of those 15 it seems that the checks were not properly conducted.
Sure, 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.
Well 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.
This 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?".
I was not suggesting people would drop their relatives off for euthanasia. Only that given how awfully some people treat their elderly relatives, I get shivers thinking about giving these people the power to coerce a family member into suicide for convenience sake. Nominally you can put in place procedures to mitigate this, but I don’t see how it can be foolproof.
The implication is that these are the kind of people that see their elderly relatives as a nuisance and are more likely to push them towards euthanasia, which seems plausible to me.
Probably, but this is a fully generalized argument against anything that can be used maliciously (which is pretty much anything). So it is obviously a specious argument.
I think the relevance is: If a family has decided that an elderly relative is of so little value to them that they will abandon them at a hospital with no need of medical attention, then the convenience of quietly and legally ending their life will outweigh the burden of providing support and family for that relative.
Right, but this isn't what the proposition is. It's that a person has a right to end their own life, not that someone else can just arbitrarily choose to euthanize someone else.
The 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.
Even 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.
> 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.
Good. 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.
I 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.
Euthanasia 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.
That'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".
When 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.
>When you are dying of stage 4 cancer like my mother was there should be an option
Yes. When you have something less that should be treatable under good-ole socialized healthcare, but neo-liberal policies have privatized it, it shouldn't be encouraged to "not be a burden" or because they just wont treat you, though, and I'm pretty sure that will be the case...
> 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).
The 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...
You'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.
Your 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.
My 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.
The 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!
I'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.
Please don't. 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.
The 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...
I 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?
It isn't Catholic, but secular. I can see how it can look like that from the outside, as the Catholic church has lots of privileges (down to a checkbox where you can "donate your tax reductions to the Catholic Church" in the state's tax forms - no other religion has this).
> it is always wrong to end your own life
If my options are a) two months of increasing agony followed by death and b) immediate painless death; and there was no c) option, then I think I'd rather skip the suffering, honestly. The fact that it would also mean needless spending is just icing on the cake. Let them use that hospital bed for some child with cancer.
If you choose a) I would certainly respect it. I would like my country to make your last days as comfortable as possible, with the resources available. I would certainly fight anyone who would impose b) onto you.
I think St. Thomas Aquinas was right in believing that some matters of personal sin are left to the individual. But once you enlist the assistance of a doctor or anyone else, that is certainly no longer the case. It would be wrong to impose "immediate painless death" on me because it is against God's law. It is wrong to kill yourself because it is also against God's law.
That’s what all laws are. You take some moral idea founded ultimately on some unprovable axiom, and then you impose it on others through violence. Whoever is able to repeatedly and reliably deploy violence to impose their religion (which doesn’t need to have a god) gets to rule society.
This is a very blunt statement that you proffer as fact - it is, in fact, your opinion. Many other people feel differently, and your opinion doesn't change that.
This viewpoint ignores the experience of the person actually wishing to end their life. I reject the notion that it is always immoral to do so. The fun thing about the universe is that all life is the same. Sure, there are different physical configurations, but life is life. Nature doesn't care one whit about life as something sacred.
>...there is an argument to be made that a person whose life has ended has no experience to consider, leaving an absolute moral/utils cost.
It's hard to say, honestly. Like, for all we know, if brain activity ceases to be measurable, then there is no experience. But how do we actually know that? One cannot know what the experience of death is like without actually experiencing it, just like we can never truly know what the living experience of others is like. I think there is much around the topic that we'll never truly be able to understand, simply because it's not a state we can enter and leave at will. The closest we can get to something like that, in my understanding, is a deep experience with DMT (or the more potent 5-MeO-DMT).
Catholicism seems to have a negligible influence in Spain nowadays. I went to Andalusia a few years ago, and found every single Catholic church there to be closed and shuttered. Crossed over the runway to Gibraltar and found them open daily.
I think the worst that can happen to a church is for it to become the cultural norm.
Indeed, I feel that it's selfish and imposing for a human to impose a morality on the self-determination of an individual to continue living or to cease doing so. Also, outside of natural end-of-life scenarios, if someone of a young age has been pushed to the point where they are looking at suicide as a serious option, then perhaps more should be said about the people to blame for that, instead of just saying "suicide is wrong" and walking away. Perhaps mental abuse should finally be considered as much of a crime as physical abuse.
Spain (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.
I 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.)
Spain is a majority Catholic country in part because of a widespread terroristic campaign of torturing and killing Jewish and Muslim Spanish people, carried out by the Catholic Church. What about the dignity of their lives?
It’s a little more complicated, involving the invasion and 780 year foreign rule by the Moors over Spain. The Catholic resistance began immediately and eventually triumphed. And of course Catholic kings were often bad. What does that have to do with it? Secular humanists have also committed atrocities under their philosophy. They were all wrong. The Catholic Church is still the one true church.
