As soon as I heard the news on Sunday that a crowd in the flood-stricken region of Valencia had thrown mud at the King and Queen of Spain, I suspected there was something more to the story.
So it proves. Under the Spanish constitution, the King cannot deny his prime minister anything. What happened seems to have been as follows. The palace, as is normal, informed the office of the prime minister, Pedro Sanchez, that the royal couple would be paying a sympathy visit to the flood zone. Mr Sanchez decided to come too. Such political linkage with a royal visit could not happen in Britain.
The prime minister is extremely unpopular because of the slow government response to the floods, in which well over 200 people died. All too aware of this, Mr Sanchez was using King Felipe as, literally, his human shield. Elements of the crowd, incensed by everything that has happened, saw the mixed official party – royal, prime ministerial and regional government – and started throwing mud.
Under this bombardment, Mr Sanchez hurried back to his car. The King and Queen, on the other hand, stayed, talking to and embracing the crowd. The Queen wept with those who grieved. The couple won considerable praise for their courage and empathy.
Not much later, the prime minister’s office started behind-the-hand briefings that the palace had chosen the wrong time to make the trip.
In fact, however, the monarchy was probably the only arm of Spanish officialdom which did move fast. The day after the floods King Felipe sent half of his own royal guard – about 50 men – to help the rescue, well before the wider army was committed.
The BBC’s early reports from the mud-slinging did not mention that Mr Sanchez was in the visiting party: yet it is the crucial fact.
Judges could once more have the power of life and death – in the name of mercy
The more I think about this Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the more I worry about what it means for professionals.
The draft Bill enlists the help of two types of professionals. The first are doctors. One must diagnose that a patient has a terminal illness and fewer than six months left to live. That doctor, and another independent doctor, must then countersign the patient’s wish to commit assisted suicide.
An “assisting health professional” must prepare the necessary fatal cocktail of drugs, help the person kill himself or herself with those drugs, except for “the final act” which must be the person’s alone, and then be “in close proximity” until the person has died.
In diagnosing terminal illness, the doctor is treating a patient. In countersigning that patient’s declaration that he wants help killing himself, the doctor suspends his normal medical duty to assist the health of the patient and instead assumes a non-medical duty to assist the person (no longer a patient) to commit the fatal deed.
Why should this be seen as a medical role? It contradicts all other medical roles and so is unprofessional.
The other type of professionals involved are judges of the High Court (Family Division). They must be “satisfied” that the would-be suicide is over 18, has a “voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life” and has signed the relevant declaration.
Why should an assisted suicide be a matter for their permission? True, judges tend to be thoughtful people and are versed in the observance of correct process. But what is the legal qualification which means they, and no else, can understand the mind of the potential suicide?
It is 60 years since a death sentence was last carried out in Britain, so no current judge has had the power of life and death. Obviously, there is a difference between self-inflicted death and death as a judicial penalty. Nevertheless, it is a strange innovation that deliberate, avoidable human death will, if the Bill is passed, now lie in the power of the judiciary. Again, is it professional?