The main drawback is the victims' families don't get closure from the murderer, which is a philosophical moral dilemma for the justice system to resolve. Spain allows euthanasia, so why not allow a an indicted person that option too? He's saving the state the expense of a trial.

I think this was the most humane thing to do, and am pleased that they have such an enlightened law in Spain. It would serve no purpose whatsoever to keep someone alive to be tried when presumably it was a forgone conclusion that he’d be found guilty.. I can only assume the only reason anyone could possibly wish him to live, be tried and sentenced would be to want to prolong his physical suffering for as long as possible…that may be understandable, but barbaric in my opinion. I believe the law and the State should always set an example by being higher and more principled than that of the mob. The offender had acted heinously but the State by showing compassion in allowing him his wish to be euthanised showed that they held the moral high ground and were not swayed by baser instincts to inflict unnecessary pain on a fellow human.

With one leg amputated the other paralyzed, chronic pain and a murder rap... why not?

I personally don't think trials provide as much closure as people expect. In addition some people are actually retraumatized by them.

I have no problem with his euthanasia before the trial. I do hope the Spanish system is providing mental health care for the victims.

I think they should have granted his request following the trial. The victims also have a compelling right to be heard so this was a miscarriage of law.