Forum debates euthanasia for mental disorders in Spain
A forum thread claims Spanish euthanasia laws now cover psychological disorders, citing precedents from the Netherlands, Canada, and Switzerland.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Forum debates euthanasia for personality disorders
In a forum thread, users argue that euthanasia, no longer restricted to terminal patients on paper, now extends to people with **psychological personality disorders**. Participants cite the case of a **23-year-old woman** with previous suicide attempts who suffered severe physical consequences. According to these posts, the Spanish legal framework aligns with **the Netherlands, Canada, or Switzerland**, where eligibility has gradually expanded. These are user assertions, not verified facts.
The discussion raised is not whether there is a right to die—users note nobody fully denies it—but **who decides that a life is no longer worth living**. They argue this boundary moves only in one direction.
From edge cases to broader criteria
The mechanism described in the thread is almost mechanical: first, an emotional case opens the debate; then it becomes normalized; finally, the criteria expand without any vote. Users recall that in **2019**, euthanasia was presented as an exception for extreme or terminal situations. What is being discussed now, they say, is different.
The most repeated parallel is with **divorce** and **abortion**: both started as solutions for specific dramas—violence, vital risk—and ended up as ordinary procedures, according to the messages. The argument used is not sarracena but based on the slippery slope: **none of those windows have ever closed**. They have always widened.
What counts as a mental disorder legally?
Here lies the core issue, according to participants. One user argues that many personality disorders are considered **exogenous or trauma-related**, manifesting in adolescence or adulthood. In other words: they would not be a biological sentence, but a response to the environment. If so, the uncomfortable question posed is why the solution is death rather than treatment.
Some in the thread claim psychiatry would end up deciding **who deserves to live and who does not**, risking lumping together people with autism, depression, or PTSD. Counter-arguments circulate insistently among users: anxiety and much of depression are **overdiagnosed**, and many professionals already question whether they are diseases or symptoms of a toxic environment—family, school, or work.
The oath and healthcare workers opting out
The other front is professional. The thread notes that **healthcare workers refusing to participate are being sidelined**, similar to what peine with abortion conscientious objectors. The Hippocratic Oath—not giving poison to anyone—would effectively be subordinate to the law, according to these messages.
Conscientious objection exists on paper. The question asked is how long a doctor lasts in certain departments when exercising it. That is the calculation, they say, that nobody publishes.
The census nobody has seen
One of the most repeated suspicions in the thread is the existence of **patient records for mental health issues** in public healthcare and private insurance companies. If such lists exist, the leap to using them as criteria is short, they argue.
The harshest thesis circulating claims that euthanasia applied to psychological profiles is **covert eugenics**, targeting profiles that do not fit into the system. It is a serious accusation, unsupported by evidence, and formulated as such in the thread: as suspicion, not fact.
Article 666 and annulled will
The legal detail brought to light is **Article 666 of the Civil Code**, used to challenge wills of persons declared incapacitated. The interpretation made is uncomfortable: if someone is diagnosed with a mental disorder, do they lose the capacity to express their will? Can basic rights be denied while granting the right to die?
The contradiction seen is evident. The same person would be treated like a child to decide their life and like an adult to decide their death.
The Dutch precedent is cited as a warning: there it was promised never to apply to minors, yet within five or six years it began, according to the messages. With these elements, they argue it is reasonable to expect the criteria to keep expanding. What is not written in any law is where it stops.
In a forum thread, users argue that euthanasia, no longer restricted to terminal patients on paper, now extends to people with **psychological personality disorders**. Participants cite the case of a **23-year-old woman** with previous suicide attempts who suffered severe physical consequences. According to these posts, the Spanish legal framework aligns with **the Netherlands, Canada, or Switzerland**, where eligibility has gradually expanded. These are user assertions, not verified facts.
The discussion raised is not whether there is a right to die—users note nobody fully denies it—but **who decides that a life is no longer worth living**. They argue this boundary moves only in one direction.
From edge cases to broader criteria
The mechanism described in the thread is almost mechanical: first, an emotional case opens the debate; then it becomes normalized; finally, the criteria expand without any vote. Users recall that in **2019**, euthanasia was presented as an exception for extreme or terminal situations. What is being discussed now, they say, is different.
The most repeated parallel is with **divorce** and **abortion**: both started as solutions for specific dramas—violence, vital risk—and ended up as ordinary procedures, according to the messages. The argument used is not sarracena but based on the slippery slope: **none of those windows have ever closed**. They have always widened.
What counts as a mental disorder legally?
Here lies the core issue, according to participants. One user argues that many personality disorders are considered **exogenous or trauma-related**, manifesting in adolescence or adulthood. In other words: they would not be a biological sentence, but a response to the environment. If so, the uncomfortable question posed is why the solution is death rather than treatment.
Some in the thread claim psychiatry would end up deciding **who deserves to live and who does not**, risking lumping together people with autism, depression, or PTSD. Counter-arguments circulate insistently among users: anxiety and much of depression are **overdiagnosed**, and many professionals already question whether they are diseases or symptoms of a toxic environment—family, school, or work.
The oath and healthcare workers opting out
The other front is professional. The thread notes that **healthcare workers refusing to participate are being sidelined**, similar to what peine with abortion conscientious objectors. The Hippocratic Oath—not giving poison to anyone—would effectively be subordinate to the law, according to these messages.
Conscientious objection exists on paper. The question asked is how long a doctor lasts in certain departments when exercising it. That is the calculation, they say, that nobody publishes.
The census nobody has seen
One of the most repeated suspicions in the thread is the existence of **patient records for mental health issues** in public healthcare and private insurance companies. If such lists exist, the leap to using them as criteria is short, they argue.
The harshest thesis circulating claims that euthanasia applied to psychological profiles is **covert eugenics**, targeting profiles that do not fit into the system. It is a serious accusation, unsupported by evidence, and formulated as such in the thread: as suspicion, not fact.
Article 666 and annulled will
The legal detail brought to light is **Article 666 of the Civil Code**, used to challenge wills of persons declared incapacitated. The interpretation made is uncomfortable: if someone is diagnosed with a mental disorder, do they lose the capacity to express their will? Can basic rights be denied while granting the right to die?
The contradiction seen is evident. The same person would be treated like a child to decide their life and like an adult to decide their death.
The Dutch precedent is cited as a warning: there it was promised never to apply to minors, yet within five or six years it began, according to the messages. With these elements, they argue it is reasonable to expect the criteria to keep expanding. What is not written in any law is where it stops.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (118 replies).
More summaries
-
Spanish worker burned in Dutch agency housing
A Spanish temp worker suffered facial burns from an oven explosion in agency-provided housing in the Netherlands, where the company allegedly abandoned her.
-
Netherlands: The Mafia Threatening the Throne and Government
The Netherlands, a PM on a bike and a secluded heir: its own police warned in 2018 of narco-state traits.
-
Biker Falls from Zaragoza Bridge in Mexico; First Car Speeds Past
A motorcyclist falls from Mexico's Zaragoza Bridge. The first car ignores him, while only a bus stops.
-
Spanish Royal Family Faces Backlash Over Photoshopped Rural Homage
The Spanish Royal Family released a digitally manipulated image to honor rural life, sparking controversy over obvious editing flaws and incoherent lighting.
-
Unverified video of struggle fuels polarized narratives in Spain
An unverified nighttime altercation outside a venue becomes ammunition for two opposing stories, lacking police reports or identification.
-
Burgos Cathedral Doors: €1.2M Controversy
Antonio López completes Burgos Cathedral doors at 91, sparking debate over aesthetics and public spending.