Euthanasia is a very delicate, very intimate topic, in a society that fortunately protects privacy, legislated by the Constitution and the Estatut, which, twenty years ago, anticipated its time and in article 20 argues the “right to live the dying process with dignity”. Journalism must refine itself to address its complexity, to combine respect for the ethics of people in such a critical situation and the deontology of the profession, knowing how to moderate its approaches, Criterion 6 of the Code of Ethics of Catalan journalists.The controversy over euthanasia has reached our pages following the media uproar generated by the case of Noelia Castillo. ARA's position has been in favor of her right to a dignified death, according to the law of March 24, 2021, and the published opinions have largely gone in this direction: articles byEmpar Moliner, Mònica Planas, Josep Ramoneda, Ester Busquets, David Miró, Àlex Gutiérrez and the appeal for a calm debate that Antoni Bassas proposed to us. Elena García Dalmau joins with a different perspective in the article, titled “Euthanasia for psychological pain?”, published on March 28 in the section very appropriately defined as “Debate”, which she knows very well as a text editor. I note some of the reader complaints about her reflection.Subscriber Sonia Garcia describes the article as “sectarian, deceptive, and offensive to many people who understand euthanasia as a right”, considers it the result of “profound ignorance”, and concludes: “The publication of pieces like this harms the reputation of a serious newspaper that, until now, I considered the ARA to be, and on a personal level, it makes me consider unsubscribing”. In a similar vein, reader Xavier Clèries states: “How can such an article be published? The author expresses imprecise opinions without knowing the reality of psychological disorders”. Of the forty-seven comments below the article, seven question us for having published it.Founding subscriber Albert Martín starts from a place of respect for some of the opinions, but he does not find it correct that, in the byline, Elena García “adds to her condition as a philologist, that of “editor of the Opinion section”. The argumentation in this case points out that being a philologist does not qualify her to offer expert opinions on the subject and that, consequently, “by adding her position at ARA, she seeks to reinforce her auctoritas”. Albert Martín then details the core of the criticism:“But what is completely inadmissible and serious, and even more so when dealing with a philologist, is the perverse use of language when, at the very beginning of the article, she states that “And she is dead because the state executed her”, in a crude manipulation of language to influence the reader, worthy of a “Stop the presses” and unworthy of ARA.In law, and according to the Institut d'Estudis Catalans, to execute is to compel the fulfillment of a debt or sentence, and in criminal justice, as we all know, the application of the death penalty. It is not the consequence of an act of free will authorized by a resolution (not a sentence) that must be legally and medically motivated by a body composed of prestigious professionals and following all the legal procedures.Evidently –concludes the subscriber– there is an acceptation of the concept “to execute” as “to carry out something”, but if Ms. García’s excuse were that this was the meaning she intended, please, do not make it worse by trying to pass off an ox for a cow and have more respect for the intelligence of the readers you have tried to manipulate”.I have asked Elena García Dalmau for her contrasting view, which is necessary in my role as arbitrator, and she replies:“The debate about euthanasia and the role the State should play in its application has been going on for decades and does not have an easy answer. Proof of the difficulty of establishing an irreproachable moral standard is the diversity of forms that euthanasia laws take in countries with long democratic traditions. The hesitations do not only affect the case of patients with psychological pathologies, to which my article alluded. The German Constitutional Court ruled in 2020 that the right to self-determine one's own death exists at all stages of human life; Spanish law restricts it to a very specific context. That two advanced democracies reach such divergent conclusions is the best proof that there is no single technical answer.The question, however, is whether the technical perspective in moral matters – continues Elena García – should be the only valid one. I believe that the debate on ethical issues of this gravity cannot be confined to the authorities of medicine, nursing, and law: it concerns all citizens. And it is as a citizen who has dedicated a lot of time to thinking about the issue for personal reasons that I wrote the column. That my background—philologist—and my work—editor in the Opinion section—appeared is a convention of the newspaper; I in no way wanted to reinforce an authority to which, moreover, I could not and do not believe it necessary to appeal in this debate”.Regarding this last aspect, the byline with her position within the Opinion team, the head of the section, Toni Güell, points out that The Defender's criterion, already stated in other chronicles, is that a democratic and generalist newspaper must prioritize informational interest and publish all types of opinions expressed with respect, and even more so on such sensitive and controversial topics. Euthanasia admits many readings, interpretations, legal and conscience considerations. On one hand, there is Catholic fundamentalism, sadly notorious for its activism which is too often invasive and inappropriate. But without leaving Christian doctrine, there are nuances that we can trace back to Thomas More (Utopia, 1516), who leaves the question open, where Scholasticism preaches that “de internis, neque Ecclesia”, which means that privacy cannot be interfered with by canon law, one might say in a free version. Beyond the advances in medicine and bioethics, between therapeutic sedation and palliative sedation, believers who have to face cases of this nature have an interpretative space that allows them to circumvent dogma. On the other side of religious beliefs, there is also no monolithic thought beyond defending the right to a dignified death and the guaranteeing legislation that supports it, legal texts that they themselves collect varied records in their initial drafts.It is possible, in this dimension of such open diversity of criteria, that not all opinions are respectable in the opinion of each reader, but it is certain that what is always respectable is the right to express an opinion. Journalism should be tolerance in a pragmatic way, less grandiloquent than ethical dominance: by profession, we listen to and disseminate messages – not just opinions, but also when we inform – with which we disagree, in the conviction that those responsible for the opinions are those who sign or express them, not the newspaper. In reciprocity, readers have the right to choose what they read and what they do not read, to praise and to criticize. They also have the right to tell us not to publish information and opinions that they may detest – I have seen very negative comments, for example, when we interviewed a politician from the PP; the most recent, Ana Pastor – but I appeal for understanding that, in these cases, the journalistic sender and the reader recipient can manage a healthy disagreement that activates feedback and improves us all.The Reader Advocate takes note of doubts, suggestions, criticisms, and complaints about the newspaper's content in its digital and print editions, and ensures that the information is handled in accordance with the codes of ethics.In accordance with the codes of ethics.To contact the Reader Advocate you can send an email to eldefensor@ara.cat or record a message of no more than one minute to the WhatsApp number 653784787. In all cases, identification with name, surnames, and ID number is required.
