# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Peter Woolf and Will Riley

Photography by David Levene

Peter Woolf was a career criminal and heroin addict when in March 2002 he broke into the home of businessman, Will Riley. As a result Peter received a three year prison sentence. Sometime after the attack, Will was asked if he would like to meet Peter at a Restorative Justice conference.

Peter
I can remember a gang fight in London when I was ten years old. All the bigger kids got tooled up so I got a big shovel and nearly pummelled someone to death with it. Another kid saw me and said, "look at him, he's completely mad!" I decided then it was all right to be completely mad. So, at 10 I was picking up drugs; at 14 I was taking heroin and soon I was committing every crime imaginable, apart from murder and sex offences. Over the years, I went from being a very successful criminal, knocking about with stars and footballers, to becoming totally addicted, totally broke and living in non-stop fear.

On 6th March 2002 I woke up in a squat in East London. There was a bath half-full of human waste, drug paraphernalia all over the floor, and blood squirted up the wall. I drank my last half can of lager and then went out and walked to a rather exclusive area where I burgled a house. When I went into the bedroom, I thought I'd change my clothes because I was stinking. Opening the wardrobe, I saw a large pair of quality shoes and thought to myself: "Good grief, the geezer who owns this house must be big." Then, at that moment, I heard a voice say, "What are you doing in my house?" I looked up and there was Will. We immediately got into a nasty fight, falling down several flights of stairs until he manoeuvred me on to the street where I was finally arrested.

When I was asked to meet Will at a Restorative Justice conference only part of me wanted to attend in order to say sorry. Mostly I just wanted to get out of my cell. So, when I met him face-to-face, I started going on about poor old me until it came to a point when I said, "Will, when we first met..." And at that he blew. "We didn't meet in a cocktail bar," he said, " YOU broke into my house", and he started listing all his feelings. Until that moment I never knew that a burglary could make people feel sad, angry, depressed, guilty - yes guilty about things I'd done!

Suddenly I was feeling his pain. He handed it over to me as though he was saying, "since you're here, you can share this with me."

And when that happened, all of a sudden I knew there was no way on this planet I could ever harm another human being the way I'd harmed Will, and thousands like him.

When the conference facilitator asked Will what he'd like to see happen to me I was certain he'd say "lock him up and throw away the keys"...but he didn't. He said he'd like to see me get an education, address my drug and alcohol problems, even get a job. That blew me away.

Today life is good. I have a beautiful wife, a lovely home and everything I need. I believe all of this came out of that one event. All my life I'd chosen the wrong path but on that day, having met Will, for the first time in my life I chose the right path.
Will
The thing that is easy to trivialise about someone breaking into your house is the violation. It's a forced entry, like a rape. And then you go into a Restorative Justice conference, having had this awful experience, not knowing what's going to happen. All you know is that you will meet the person you fought with, who robbed you. As I sat there, and Peter gave his spiel, I started feeling really annoyed and very bored. I just switched off, saying to myself, "what am I doing here? This is a complete waste of time." Then Peter said those words..... "when we first met" ....and suddenly I wasn't bored anymore. I was furious now and I told him exactly how I felt. It came out like a fire hose. I told him how he'd destroyed the one belief I had in myself, that I could protect my home and my family. When I'd finished, I looked at the guy. It was like a train had hit him. His lower lip was almost quivering. I could see he was gutted

Finally, when the meeting was over, we had tea and biscuits. We were just people who had been pushed against a wall, and who slowly but surely had come together around a table to work it out.

Now, six years later, it's clear the meeting wasn't simply about Peter, but had a huge impact on me too.

Talking is the only way forward. People who don't talk (which is the majority of victims) are delaying and even maintaining the pain.

Luckily, Peter and I are still talking. He's a great man, very clever, has a lovely sense of humour, a genuine raw presence and I'm hugely fortunate to be able to count him as a friend.

Will is the founder of Why Me?, an organisation promoting Restorative Justice for victims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Photography by David Levene Peter Woolf was a career criminal and heroin addict when in March 2002 he broke into the home of businessman, Will Riley. As a result Peter received a three year prison sentence. Sometime after the attack, Will was asked if he would like to meet Peter at a Restorative Justice conference.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Catch up on your favourite BBC radio show from your favourite DJ right here, whenever you like. Listen without limits with BBC Sounds.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last year a Dutch doctor called Bert Keizer was summoned to the house of a man dying of lung cancer, in order to end his life. When Keizer and the nurse who was to assist him arrived, they found around 35 people gathered around the dying man's bed. "They were drinking and guffawing and crying," Keizer told me when I met him in Amsterdam recently. "It was boisterous. And I thought: 'How am I going to cleave the waters?' But the man knew exactly what to do. Suddenly he said, 'OK, guys!' and everyone understood. Everyone fell silent. The very small children were taken out of the room and I gave him his injection. I could have kissed him, because I wouldn't have known how to break up the party."

Keizer is one of around 60 physicians on the books of the Levenseindekliniek, or End of Life Clinic, which matches doctors willing to perform euthanasia with patients seeking an end to their lives, and which was responsible for the euthanasia of some 750 people in 2017. For Keizer, who was a philosopher before studying medicine, the advent of widespread access to euthanasia represents a new era. "For the first time in history," he told me, "we have developed a space where people move towards death while we are touching them and they are in our midst. That's completely different from killing yourself when your wife's out shopping and the kids are at school and you hang yourself in the library - which is the most horrible way of doing it, because the wound never heals. The fact that you are a person means that you are linked to other people. And we have found a bearable way of severing that link, not by a natural death, but by a self-willed ending. It's a very special thing."

This "special thing" has in fact become normal. Everyone in the Netherlands seems to have known someone who has been euthanised, and the kind of choreographed farewell that Keizer describes is far from unusual. Certainly, the idea that we humans have a variety of deaths to choose from is more familiar in the Netherlands than anywhere else. But the long-term consequences of this idea are only just becoming discernible. Euthanasia has been legal in the Netherlands for long enough to show what can happen after the practice beds in. And as an end-of-life specialist in a nation that has for decades been the standard bearer of libertarian reform, Keizer may be a witness to the future that awaits us all.

In 2002, the parliament in the Hague legalised euthanasia for patients experiencing "unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement". Since then, euthanasia and its close relation, assisted dying, in which one person facilitates the suicide of another, have been embraced by Belgium and Canada, while public opinion in many countries where it isn't on the national statute, such as Britain, the US and New Zealand, has swung heavily in favour.

The momentum of euthanasia appears unstoppable; after Colombia, in 2015, and the Australian state of Victoria, in 2017, Spain may be the next big jurisdiction to legalise physician-assisted death, while one in six Americans (the majority of them in California) live in states where it is legal. In Switzerland, which has the world's oldest assisted dying laws, foreigners are also able to obtain euthanasia.

If western society continues to follow the Dutch, Belgian and Canadian examples, there is every chance that in a few decades' time euthanasia will be one widely available option from a menu of possible deaths, including an "end of life" poison pill available on demand to anyone who finds life unbearable. For many greying baby boomers - veterans of earlier struggles to legalise abortion and contraception - a civilised death at a time of their choosing is a right that the state should provide and regulate. As this generation enters its final years, the precept that life is precious irrespective of one's medical condition is being called into question as never before.

As the world's pioneer, the Netherlands has also discovered that although legalising euthanasia might resolve one ethical conundrum, it opens a can of others - most importantly, where the limits of the practice should be drawn. In the past few years a small but influential group of academics and jurists have raised the alarm over what is generally referred to, a little archly, as the "slippery slope" - the idea that a measure introduced to provide relief to late-stage cancer patients has expanded to include people who might otherwise live for many years, from sufferers of diseases such as muscular dystrophy to sexagenarians with dementia and even mentally ill young people.

Perhaps the most prominent of these sceptics is Theo Boer, who teaches ethics at the Theological University of Kampen. Between 2005 and 2014, Boer was a member of one of the five regional boards that were set up to review every act of euthanasia and hand cases over to prosecutors if irregularities are detected. (Each review board is composed of a lawyer, a doctor and an ethicist.) Recent government figures suggest that doubts over the direction of Dutch euthanasia are having an effect on the willingness of doctors to perform the procedure. In November, the health ministry revealed that in the first nine months of 2018 the number of cases was down 9% compared to the same period in 2017, the first drop since 2006. In a related sign of a more hostile legal environment, shortly afterwards the judiciary announced the first prosecution of a doctor for malpractice while administering euthanasia.

It is too early to say if euthanasia in the Netherlands has reached a high-water mark - and too early to say if the other countries that are currently making it easier to have an assisted death will also hesitate if the practice comes to be seen as too widespread. But it is significant that in addition to the passionate advocacy of Bert Keizer - who positively welcomes the "slippery slope" - Boer's more critical views are being solicited by foreign parliamentarians and ethicists who are considering legal changes in their own countries. As Boer explained to me, "when I'm showing the statistics to people in Portugal or Iceland or wherever, I say: 'Look closely at the Netherlands because this is where your country may be 20 years from now.'"

"The process of bringing in euthanasia legislation began with a desire to deal with the most heartbreaking cases - really terrible forms of death," Boer said. "But there have been important changes in the way the law is applied. We have put in motion something that we have now discovered has more consequences than we ever imagined."

ert Keizer carried out his first euthanasia in 1984. Back then, when he was working as a doctor in a care home, ending the life of a desperately ill person at their request was illegal, even if prosecutions were rare. When a retired shoemaker called Antonius Albertus, who was dying of lung cancer, asked to be put out of his misery, Keizer found that two sides of himself - the law-abiding doctor and the altruist - were at odds.

"Antonius wasn't in pain," Keizer told me, "but he had that particular exhaustion that every oncologist knows, a harrowing exhaustion, and I saw him dwindle before me." In the event, Keizer, who as an 11-year-old watched his mother suffer an excruciating death from liver disease, went with the altruist. He injected 40mg of Valium into Antonius - enough to put him in a coma - then gave him the anti-respiratory drug that ended his life.

Keizer was not investigated after reporting an unnatural death at his own hand, and his career did not suffer as he feared it might. But what, I asked him, had prompted him to break the law, and violate a principle - the preservation of life - that has defined medical ethics since Hippocrates? Keizer paused to brush away a spider that had crawled uninvited on to my shoulder. "It was something very selfish," he replied. "If ever I was in his situation, asking for death, I would want people to listen to me, and not say, 'It cannot be done because of the law or the Bible.'"

Over the past few decades the Bible has been increasingly sidelined, and the law has vindicated the young doctor who put Antonius to sleep. As people got used to the new law, the number of Dutch people being euthanised began to rise sharply, from under 2,000 in 2007 to almost 6,600 in 2017. (Around the same number are estimated to have had their euthanasia request turned down as not conforming with the legal requirements.) Also in 2017, some 1,900 Dutch people killed themselves, while the number of people who died under palliative sedation - in theory, succumbing to their illness while cocooned from physical discomfort, but in practice often dying of dehydration while unconscious - hit an astonishing 32,000. Altogether, well over a quarter of all deaths in 2017 in the Netherlands were induced.

One of the reasons why euthanasia became more common after 2007 is that the range of conditions considered eligible expanded, while the definition of "unbearable suffering" that is central to the law was also loosened. At the same time, murmurs of apprehension began to be heard, which, even in the marvellously decorous chamber of Dutch public debate, have risen in volume. Concerns centre on two issues with strong relevance to euthanasia: dementia and autonomy.

Many Dutch people write advance directives that stipulate that if their mental state later deteriorates beyond a certain point - if, say, they are unable to recognise family members - they are to be euthanised regardless of whether they dissent from their original wishes. But Last January a medical ethicist called Berna Van Baarsen caused a stir when she resigned from one of the review boards in protest at the growing frequency with which dementia sufferers are being euthanised on the basis of a written directive that they are unable to confirm after losing their faculties. "It is fundamentally impossible," she told the newspaper Trouw, "to establish that the patient is suffering unbearably, because he can no longer explain it."

Van Baarsen's scruples have crystallised in the country's first euthanasia malpractice case, which prosecutors are now preparing. (Three further cases are currently under investigation.) It involves a dementia sufferer who had asked to be killed when the "time" was "right", but when her doctor judged this to be the case, she resisted. The patient had to be drugged and restrained by her family before she finally submitted to the doctor's fatal injection. The doctor who administered the dose - who has not been identified - has defended her actions by saying that she was fulfilling her patient's request and that, since the patient was incompetent, her protests before her death were irrelevant. Whatever the legal merits of her argument, it hardly changes what must have been a scene of unutterable grimness.

The underlying problem with the advance directives is that they imply the subordination of an irrational human being to their rational former self, essentially splitting a single person into two mutually opposed ones. Many doctors, having watched patients adapt to circumstances they had once expected to find intolerable, doubt whether anyone can accurately predict what they will want after their condition worsens.

The second conflict that has crept in as euthanasia has been normalised is a societal one. It comes up when there is an opposition between the right of the individual and society's obligation to protect lives. "The euthanasia requests that are the most problematic," explains Agnes van der Heide, professor of medical care and end-of-life decision-making at the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, "are those that are based on the patient's autonomy, which leads them to tell the doctor: 'You aren't the one to judge whether I am to die.'" She doesn't expect this impulse, already strong among baby boomers, to diminish among coming generations. "For our young people, the autonomy principle is at the forefront of their thinking."

The growing divisions over euthanasia are being reflected in the deliberations of the review boards. Consensus is rarer than it was when the only cases that came before them involved patients with late-stage terminal illnesses, who were of sound mind. Since her resignation, Berna Van Baarsen has complained that "legal arguments weigh more and more heavily" on the committees, "while the moral question of whether in certain cases good is done by killing, threatens to get snowed under".

In this new, more ambiguous environment, the recent dip in euthanasia numbers doesn't seem surprising. Besides their fear of attracting prosecutors' attention, some doctors have been irked by the growing public perception that they are no-questions-asked purveyors of dignified death, and are pushing back. For Dutch GPs, fielding demands for euthanasia from assertive patients who resent the slightest reluctance on the part of their physician has become one of the more disagreeable aspects of their job.

"In the coldest weeks of last winter," Theo Boer told me, "a doctor friend of mine was told by an elderly patient: 'I demand to have euthanasia this week - you promised.' The doctor replied: 'It's -15C outside. Take a bottle of whisky and sit in your garden and we will find you tomorrow, because I cannot accept that you make me responsible for your own suicide.' The doctor in question, Boer said, used to perform euthanasia on around three people a year. He has now stopped altogether.

Although he supported the 2002 euthanasia law at the time, Boer now regrets that it didn't stipulate that the patient must be competent at the time of termination, and that if possible the patient should administer the fatal dose themselves. Boer is also concerned about the psychological effect on doctors of killing someone with a substantial life expectancy: "When you euthanise a final-stage cancer patient, you know that even if your decision is problematic, that person would have died anyway. But when that person might have lived decades, what is always in your mind is that they might have found a new balance in their life."

n November 2016, Monique and Bert de Gooijer, a couple from Tilburg, became minor celebrities when a regional paper, the Brabants Dagblad, devoted an entire issue to the euthanasia of their son, an obese, darkly humorous, profoundly disturbed 38-year-old called Eelco. His euthanasia was one of the first high-profile cases involving a young person suffering from mental illness. Of the hundreds of reactions the newspaper received, most of them supportive, the one that made the biggest impression on the de Gooijers came from a woman whose daughter had gone out one day, taking the empty bottles to the store, and walked in front of a train. "She envied us," Monique told me as I sat with her and Bert in their front room, "because she didn't know why her daughter had done it. She said: 'You were able to ask Eelco every question you had. I have only questions.'"

Privately, even surreptitiously undertaken, suicide leaves behind shattered lives. Even when it goes according to plan, someone finds a body. That openly discussed euthanasia can cushion or even obviate much of this hurt is something I hadn't really considered before meeting the de Gooijers. Nor had I fully savoured the irony that suicide, with its high risk of failure and collateral damage, was illegal across Europe until a few decades ago, while euthanasia, with its apparently more benign - at least, more manageable - consequences, remains illegal in most countries.

Whatever the act of killing a physically healthy young man tells us about Dutch views of human wellbeing, the demise of Eelco de Gooijer didn't traumatise a train driver or a weekender fishing in a canal. Eelco was euthanised only after long thought and discussions with his family. He enjoyed a good laugh with the undertaker who had come to take his measurements for a super-size coffin. He was able to say farewell to everyone who loved him, and he died, as Monique and Bert assured me, at peace. There might be a word for this kind of suicide, the kind that is acceptable to all parties. Call it consensual.

"You try to make your child happy," Monique said in her matter-of-fact way, "but Eelco wasn't happy in life. He wanted to stop suffering, and death was the only way." Eelco came of age just as euthanasia was being legalised. After years of being examined by psychiatrists who made multiple diagnoses and prescribed a variety of ineffective remedies, he began pestering the doctors of Tilburg to end his life.

Euthanasia is counted as a basic health service, covered by the monthly premium that every citizen pays to his or her insurance company. But doctors are within their rights not to carry it out. Unique among medical procedures, a successful euthanasia isn't something you can assess with your patient after the event. A small minority of doctors refuse to perform it for this reason, and others because of religious qualms. Some simply cannot get their heads around the idea that they must kill people they came into medicine in order to save.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Protesters in the Hague in 2001, while the Dutch government was debating the legalisation of euthanasia, which passed in 2002. Photograph: Serge Ligtenberg/AP

Those who demur on principle are a small proportion of the profession, perhaps less than 8%, according to the end-of-life specialist Agnes van der Heide. The reason why there is no uniformity of response to requests for euthanasia is that the doctor's personal views - on what constitutes "unbearable suffering", for instance - often weigh decisively. As the most solemn and consequential intervention a Dutch physician can be asked to make, and this in a profession that aims to standardise responses to all eventualities, the decision to kill is oddly contingent on the mercurial human conscience.

A category of euthanasia request that Dutch doctors commonly reject is that of a mentally ill person whose desire to die could be interpreted as a symptom of a treatable psychiatric disease - Eelco de Gooijer, in other words. Eelco was turned down by two doctors in Tilburg; one of them balked at doing the deed because she was pregnant. In desperation, Eelco turned to the Levenseindekliniek. With its ideological commitment to euthanasia and cadre of specialist doctors, it has done much to help widen the scope of the practice, and one of its teams ended Eelco's misery on 23 November 2016. A second team from the same clinic killed another psychologically disturbed youngster, Aurelia Brouwers, early last year.

Ideally euthanasia is a structure with three struts: patient, doctor and the patient's loved ones. In the case of Eelco de Gooijer, the struts were sturdy and aligned. Eelco's death was accomplished with compassion, circumspection and scrupulous regard for the feelings of all concerned. It's little wonder that the Dutch Voluntary Euthanasia Society, or NVVE, vaunts it as an example of euthanasia at its best.

After leaving the de Gooijers, I drove northwards, bisecting hectares of plant nurseries, skirting Tesla's European factory, to a conference organised by the NVVE. Apart from being the parent organisation of the Levenseindekliek, the NVVE, with its membership of 170,000 (bigger than any Dutch political party) and rolling programme of public meetings, is one of the most powerful interest groups in the Netherlands. The conference that day was aimed at tackling psychiatrists' well known opposition to euthanasia for psychiatric cases - in effect, trying to break down the considerable opposition that remains among psychiatrists to euthanising disturbed youngsters like Eelco and Aurelia.

The conference centre on the outskirts of Driebergen stood amid tall conifers and beehives. I was offered a beaker of curried pumpkin soup while the session that was underway when I arrived - titled "Guidelines for terminating life on the request of a patient with a psychiatric disorder" - came to an orderly close in the lecture hall. Precisely three minutes behind schedule, the Dutch planned-death establishment debouched for refreshments.

I had met my first NVVE member quite by chance in Amsterdam. After watching her mother die incontinent and addled, this woman of around 70 signed an advance directive requesting euthanasia should she get dementia or lose control of her bowels. These conditions currently dominate the euthanasia debate, because so many people in their 60s and 70s want an opt-out from suffering they have observed in their parents. When I mentioned to the woman in Amsterdam the reluctance of many doctors to euthanise someone who isn't mentally competent, she replied, bristling: "No doctor has the right to decide when my life should end."

At any meeting organised by the NVVE, you will look in vain for poor people, pious Christians or members of the Netherlands' sizeable Muslim minority. Borne along by the ultra-rational spirit of Dutch libertarianism (the spirit that made the Netherlands a pioneer in reforming laws on drugs, sex and pornography), the Dutch euthanasia scene also exudes a strong whiff of upper-middle class entitlement.

Over coffee I was introduced to Steven Pleiter, the director of the Levenseindekliniek. We went outside and basked in the early October sun as he described the "shift in mindset" he is trying to achieve. Choosing his words with care, Pleiter said he hoped that in future doctors will feel more confident accommodating demands for "the most complex varieties of euthanasia, like psychiatric illnesses and dementia" - not through a change in the law, he added, but through a kind of "acceptance ... that grows and grows over the years". When I asked him if he understood the scruples of those doctors who refuse to perform euthanasia because they entered their profession in order to save lives, he replied: "If the situation is unbearable and there is no prospect of improvement, and euthanasia is an option, it would be almost unethical [of a doctor] not to help that person."

After the Levenseindekliniek was founded in 2012, Pleiter sat down with the insurance companies to work out what they would pay the clinic for each euthanasia procedure its doctors perform. The current figure is €3,000, payable to the clinic even if the applicant pulls out at the last minute. I suggested to Pleiter that the insurance companies must prefer to pay a one-off fee for euthanising someone to spending a vast sum in order to keep that person, needy and unproductive, alive in a nursing home.

Pleiter's pained expression suggested that I had introduced a note of cynicism into a discussion that should be conducted on a more elevated plane. "There's not an atom in my body that is in sympathy with what you are describing," he replied. "This isn't about money ... it's about empathy, ethics, compassion." And he restated the credo that animates right-to-die movements everywhere: 'I strongly believe there is no need for suffering.'

That not all planned deaths correspond to the experiences of Bert Keizer or the de Gooijer family is something one can easily forget amid the generally positive aura that surrounds euthanasia. The more I learned about it, the more it seemed that euthanasia, while assigning commendable value to the end of life, might simultaneously cheapen life itself. Another factor I hadn't appreciated was the possibility of collateral damage. In an event as delicately contractual as euthanasia, there are different varieties of suffering.

ack in the days when euthanasia was illegal but tolerated, the euthanising doctor was obliged to consult the relatives of the person who had asked to die. Due to qualms over personal autonomy and patient-doctor confidentiality - and an entirely proper concern to protect vulnerable people from unscrupulous relatives - this obligation didn't make it into the 2002 law that legalised euthanasia.

This legal nicety would become painfully significant to a middle-aged motorcycle salesman from Zwolle called Marc Veld. In the spring of last year, he began to suspect that his mother, Marijke, was planning to be euthanised, but he never got the opportunity to explain to her doctor why, in his view, her suffering was neither unbearable nor impossible to alleviate. On 9 June, the doctor phoned him and said: "I'm sorry, your mother passed away half an hour ago."

Marc showed me a picture he had taken of Marijke in her coffin, her white hair carefully brushed and her skin glowing with the smooth, even foundation of the mortuary beautician. Between her hands was a letter Marc had put there and would be buried with her - a letter detailing his unhappiness, resentment and guilt.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Marijke, who was euthanised at 76, with a letter from her son, written after her death, detailing his upset at her decision. Photograph: Marc Veld

There is little doubt that Marijke spent much of her 76 years in torment, beginning with her infancy in a Japanese concentration camp after the invasion of the Dutch East Indies, in 1941, and recurring during her unhappy adulthood in the Netherlands. But Dutch doctors don't euthanise people because of depression - even if the more extreme advocates of the right to die think they should. As a result, it isn't uncommon for depressives or lonely people to emphasise a physical ailment in order to get their euthanasia request approved. During his time on the review board, Theo Boer came across several cases in which the "death wish preceded the physical illness ... some patients are happy to be able to ask for euthanasia on the basis of a physical reason, while the real reason is deeper".

In Marijke's case, the physical reason was a terminal lung disease, which, Marc told me, she both exacerbated and exaggerated. She did this by cancelling physiotherapy sessions that might have slowed its progress, bombarding her GP with complaints about shortness of breath and slumping "like a sack of potatoes" whenever he visited. "To be sure of being euthanised," Marc said drily, "you need above all to take acting lessons."

What torments him today is that his mother died while there was hope that her illness could be slowed. "If she had cancer and was feeling pain and it was the last three months of her life, I would have been happy for her to have euthanasia. But she could have lived at least a few more years."

Defenders of personal autonomy would say that Marc had no business interfering in his mother's death, but beneath his anger lies the inconsolable sadness of a son who blames himself for not doing more. Marijke's euthanasia was carried out according to the law, and will raise no alarms in the review board. It was also carried out without regard to her relatedness to other human beings.

For all the safeguards that have been put in place against the manipulation of applicants for euthanasia, in cases where patients do include relatives in their decision-making, it can never be entirely foreclosed, as I discovered in a GP's surgery in Wallonia, the French-speaking part of Belgium.

The GP in question - we'll call her Marie-Louise - is a self-confessed idealist who sees it as her mission to "care, care, care". In 2017, one of her patients, a man in late middle-age, was diagnosed with dementia and signed a directive asking for euthanasia when his condition worsened. As his mind faltered, however, so did his resolve - which did not please his wife, who became an evangelist for her husband's death. "He must have changed his mind 20 times," Marie-Louise said. "I saw the pressure she was applying."

In order to illustrate one of the woman's outbursts, Marie-Louise rose from her desk, walked over to the filing cabinet and, adopting the persona of the infuriated wife, slammed down her fist, exclaiming, "If only he had the courage! Coward!"

Most medical ethicists would approve of Marie-Louise's refusal to euthanise a patient who had been pressured. By the time she went away on holiday last summer, she believed she had won from her patient an undertaking not to press for euthanasia. But she had not reckoned with her own colleague in the practice, a doctor who takes a favourable line towards euthanasia, and when Marie-Louise returned from holidays she found out that this colleague had euthanised her patient.

When I visited Marie-Louise several months after the event, she remained bewildered by what had happened. As with Marc, guilt was a factor; if she hadn't gone away, would her patient still be alive? Now she was making plans to leave the practice, but hadn't yet made an announcement for fear of unsettling her other patients. "How can I stay here?" she said. "I am a doctor and yet I can't guarantee the safety of my most vulnerable patients."

hile for many people whose loved ones have been euthanised, the procedure can be satisfactory and even inspiring, in others it has caused hurt and inner conflict. Bert Keizer rightly observes that suicide leaves scars on friends and family that may never heal. But suicide is an individual act, self-motivated and self-administered, and its force field is contained. Euthanasia, by contrast, is the product of society. When it goes wrong, it goes wrong for everyone.

Even as law and culture make euthanasia seem more normal, it remains among the most unfamiliar acts a society can condone. It isn't enough that the legal niceties be observed; there needs to be agreement among the interested parties on why it is taking place, and to what end. Without consensus on these basic motivations, euthanasia won't be an occasion for empathy, ethics or compassion, but a bludgeon swinging through people's lives, whose handiwork cannot be undone.

Two years ago the Netherlands' health and justice ministers issued a joint proposal for a "completed life" pill that would give anyone over 70 years of age the right to receive a lethal poison, cutting the doctor out of the equation completely. In the event, the fragmented nature of Dutch coalition politics stopped the proposal in its tracks, but doctors and end-of-life specialists I spoke to expect legislation to introduce such a completed-life bill to come before parliament in due course.

Assuming it could be properly safeguarded (a big assumption), the completed-life pill would not necessarily displease many doctors I spoke to; it would allow them to get back to saving lives. But while some applicants for euthanasia are furious with doctors who turn them down, in practice people are unwilling to take their own lives. Rather than drink the poison or open the drip, 95% of applicants for active life termination in the Netherlands ask a doctor to kill them. In a society that vaunts its rejection of established figures of authority, when it comes to death, everyone asks for Mummy.

Even those who have grave worries about the slippery slope concede that consensual euthanasia for terminal illness can be a beautiful thing, and that the principle of death at a time of one's choosing can fit into a framework of care. The question for any country contemplating euthanasia legislation is whether the practice must inevitably expand - in which case, as Agnes van der Heide recognises, death will eventually "get a different meaning, be appreciated differently". In the Netherlands many people would argue that - for all the current wobbles - that process is now irreversible.
Christopher de Bellaigue will chair a discussion on euthanasia at the Dutch Centre in London EC2 on 23 Wednesday Jan at 7pm. See dutchcentre.com. This article was supported by funding from the Pulitzer Center for Crisis Reporting
* This article was amended on 23 and 24 January 2019. A previous version referred to "muscle-wasting diseases such as multiple sclerosis", where muscular dystrophy was meant. It was further amended because an earlier version said the decision to allow euthanasia was "contingent on a single, mercurial human conscience". Dutch law states that at least two doctors must be involved in any request for assisted dying.

* Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up to the long read weekly email here.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Death on demand: has euthanasia gone too far?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last year a Dutch doctor called Bert Keizer was summoned to the house of a man dying of lung cancer, in order to end his life. When Keizer and the nurse who was to assist him arrived, they found around 35 people gathered around the dying man's bed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ceremony is one of the most important ceremonies in Sikhism. It was started by Guru Gobind Singh , the tenth Sikh Guru, who called for Sikhs to defend their faith against the persecution that was happening to them at the time. Guru Gobind Singh asked for volunteers who were prepared to die for their faith. Five men volunteered, but instead of being killed, they were spared and became known as the - which means 'the five beloved ones'. They were the first members of the Sikh community known as the .

When Sikhs undergo the amrit ceremony today and join the Khalsa, they must promise to keep all the rules of the Sikh faith, and also to wear the . Click the picture below to find out more about the 5Ks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The ceremony is one of the most important ceremonies in Sikhism. It was started by Guru Gobind Singh , the tenth Sikh Guru, who called for Sikhs to defend their faith against the persecution that was happening to them at the time. Guru Gobind Singh asked for volunteers who were prepared to die for their faith.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hinduism is the oldest of the six major world religions. It has no single founder but developed gradually over a period of time.

Hinduism has over 1 billion followers worldwide, with about 95% of Hindus living in India. At the time of the 2011 census, there were over 800,000 Hindus living in the UK.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the religion of Hinduism with facts, figures, quizzes, videos and interactive activities from BBC Bitesize Religious Studies. For children between the ages of 11 and 14.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Theravada was the tradition spread by King Ashoka who lived in India 100 years after the Buddha died. It states that each person has to find their own enlightenment (the truth about the meaning of life which the Buddha gained) through meditation and help from wise monks. Their special books are written in an ancient Indian language called and they will remember the birth, enlightenment and death of the Buddha during the festival of Wesak.

Mahayana is split into the Northern Traditions (found in countries such as Tibet and Nepal) and the Eastern Traditions (found in countries such as China and Japan). Their special books are written in another ancient language of India called and during the festival of Wesak they only celebrate the birth of the Buddha.

Mahayana Buddhists believe there are many different ways to gain enlightenment and that the Bodhisattvas will help them. A Bodhisattva is someone who can gain enlightenment but decides to stop this from fully happening in order to help others gain enlightenment as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the religion of Buddhism with facts, figures, quizzes, videos and interactive activities from BBC Bitesize Religious Studies. For children between the ages of 11 and 14.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about the religion of Christianity with facts, figures, quizzes, videos and interactive activities from BBC Bitesize Religious Studies. For children between the ages of 11 and 14.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Islam - KS3 Religious Studies - BBC Bitesize

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
KS3 Religious Studies Islam learning resources for adults, children, parents and teachers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Hindu ideas about the creation of the universe.

Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Hindu ideas about Creation. According to most Western religious traditions, a deity was the original creator of the Universe. Hinduism, on the other hand, has no single creation story. For thousands of years, Hindu thinkers have taken a variety of approaches to the question of where we come from, with some making the case for divine intervention and others asking whether it is even possible for humans to comprehend the nature of creation. The origin of our existence, and the nature of the Universe we live in, is one of the richest strands of Hindu thought.

With:

Jessica Frazier
Lecturer in Religious Studies at the University of Kent and a Research Fellow of the Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies at the University of Oxford

Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad
Professor of Comparative Religion and Philosophy at Lancaster University

Gavin Flood
Professor of Hindu Studies and Comparative Religion at the University of Oxford.

Producer: Thomas Morris.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, Hindu Ideas of Creation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Hindu ideas about the creation of the universe. Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss Hindu ideas about Creation. According to most Western religious traditions, a deity was the original creator of the Universe. Hinduism, on the other hand, has no single creation story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Traditional Jews believes it is important that Jews should keep all of the rules God gave them, and that these rules cannot change. This means that prayers are always read in the ancient Jewish language called , men and women are not allowed to sit together in the , and the rules of the Jewish holy day of are strictly followed (for example, they will not drive a car or use their phones on this day). Traditional Judaism does not allow women to become (Jewish teachers and leaders in the synagogue) and food laws are strictly observed. For example, Traditional Jews will not eat meat and dairy together, and they will use different pots and pans for dairy and meat.

Most Progressive Jews do not follow these rules so strictly, as they think the rules that govern them can be changed. Progressive Jews let men and women sit together in the synagogue, recite prayers in languages other than Hebrew, and do not follow the food laws as strictly as Traditional Jews. They also allow women to become rabbis, and do not keep such strict rules on Shabbat (for example, they may drive or use their phones).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Traditional Jews believes it is important that Jews should keep all of the rules God gave them, and that these rules cannot change. This means that prayers are always read in the ancient Jewish language called , men and women are not allowed to sit together in the , and the rules of the Jewish holy day of are strictly followed (for example, they will not drive a car or use their phones on this day).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The life of Siddhartha Gautama and the legacy of his teachings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Emily's mum recently got married, and it got her thinking: what does marriage mean for Christians? So with the help of her mum, her new step dad and the vicar who performed the ceremony, Emily talks us through the wedding video.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Emily's mum recently got married, and it got her thinking: what does marriage mean for Christians? So with the help of her mum, her new step dad and the vicar who performed the ceremony, Emily talks us through the wedding video.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Absolutely brilliant film. Those who criticise it for dealing with the subject of disabilty should look past the fact Will is disabled and look at the film in the light of what it aims to be, a touching, romance film. Emelia Clarke is great. Sam Claflin is brilliant. A definite must see film.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Absolutely brilliant film. Those who criticise it for dealing with the subject of disabilty should look past the fact Will is disabled and look at the film in the light of what it aims to be, a touching, romance film. Emelia Clarke is great. Sam Claflin is brilliant.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jessica Melly, who believes that abortion should be illegal, pitches her perspective against some members of the public, showing that there are two sides to the story and asking viewers to decide how they feel about this issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Orbiting Earth at this very moment, the alien survey ship "Pantheon" is abducting people to collect data about their belief systems. Rabbi David is beamed into the interrogation chamber to answer questions about Judaism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Orbiting Earth at this very moment, the alien survey ship "Pantheon" is abducting people to collect data about their belief systems. Rabbi David is beamed into the interrogation chamber to answer questions about Judaism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Natasha welcomes TrueTube to the New London Synagogue for a tour of all its main features. Taking us from the door to the Ark to the women's gallery, she talks about her beliefs and what happens during a service at the synagogue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Islam Began - In Ten Minutes - TrueTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How Islam began in under ten minutes? Not a problem. The turbulent tale is told against the clock, with all the names, dates and events on a timeline. Animation by Ceiren Bell.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Day in the Life of a Muslim Imam - TrueTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is an imam, and what does he do all day? Say, "Salaam alaikum" to Naveed and watch as TrueTube follows him around with a camera.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An imam, a student and a calligrapher who works in Arabic share their thoughts about the Qur'an - where it came from, why it's important and how they use it in their everyday lives. A film by Kim Roden.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A dramatised extract from Matthew's Gospel that tells his version of the Christmas story (Matthew 1:14 through to 2:23). See what Luke had to say about it by following the link below.

Courtesy of The Lumo Project.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Gospel of Matthew - The Nativity - TrueTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A dramatised extract from Matthew's Gospel that tells his version of the Christmas story (Matthew 1:14 through to 2:23). See what Luke had to say about it by following the link below. Courtesy of The Lumo Project.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
He is not only the founder of Christianity, but also an important figure in Judaism and Islam.

This engaging, summary of his life and legacy presents the historical figure of Jesus as a religious leader, and details the significance of his life and death in different religious traditions.

Students will be introduced to the concepts of resurrections and holy trinity that make Jesus so special for Christians, while also learning about the different roles that the Islamic and Jewish tradition have assigned him.

This is from the series: A-Z of Religion and Beliefs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
He is not only the founder of Christianity, but also an important figure in Judaism and Islam. This engaging, summary of his life and legacy presents the historical figure of Jesus as a religious leader, and details the significance of his life and death in different religious traditions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Day in the Life of a Hindu Priest - TrueTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How does a Hindu Priest fill his time? To find out, TrueTube followed Krishan around with a camera for a day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Day in the Life of a Hindu Priest - TrueTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How does a Hindu Priest fill his time? To find out, TrueTube followed Krishan around with a camera for a day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Day in the Life of a Sikh Granthi - TrueTube

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sukhdeep Singh is a Granthi in the Sikh faith. But what does that mean? He let TrueTube follow him around with a camera all day to find out.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The argument from Design says that God must exist because the universe points to a creator.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We know that, together, we can end the death penalty everywhere.

Every day, people are executed and sentenced to death by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes - sometimes for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries, it can be for drug-related offences, in others it is reserved for terrorism-related acts and murder.

Some countries execute people who were under the age of 18 when the crime for which they have been convicted was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities and several others apply the death penalty after unfair trials - in clear violation of international law and standards. People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception - regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

Previous Next

About the death penalty

Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.

Over time, the international community has adopted several instruments that ban the use of the death penalty, including the following:

The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.

Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty, and Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances.

The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Although international law says that the use of the death penalty must be restricted to the most serious crimes, meaning intentional killing, Amnesty International believes that the death penalty is never the answer.

Amnesty International has never felt more hopeful that this abhorrent punishment can and will be relegated to the annals of history
Agnès Callamard, Secretary General, Amnesty International

Juvenile Executions

The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still resort to the death penalty in these situations. Such executions are few compared to the total number of executions recorded by Amnesty International each year.

However, their significance goes beyond their number and calls into question the commitment of the executing states to respect international law.

Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented at least 163 executions of people who were below the age of 18, in 10 countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, the USA and Yemen.

Several of these countries have changed their laws to exclude the practice. Iran has executed more than twice as many people who were below the age of 18 at the time of the crime as the other nine countries combined. At the time of writing Iran has executed at least 113 of them since 1990.

Execution Methods used in 2022

Beheading

Hanging

Lethal injection

Shooting

Where do most executions take place?

In 2022, most known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the USA - in that order.

China remained the world's leading executioner - but the true extent of its use of the death penalty is unknown as this data is classified as a state secret; the global figure of at least 883 excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out there.

Excluding China, 90% of all reported executions took place in just three countries - Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The global view: death sentences and executions 2008-2022

*This map indicates the general locations of boundaries and jurisdictions and should not be interpreted as Amnesty International's view on disputed territories.

**Country names listed reflect nomenclature in May 2023

How many death sentences and executions take place each year?

Death sentences

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,016 death sentences in 52 countries in 2022, a slight decrease from the total of 2,052 reported in 2021. At least 28,282 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2022.

Executions

Amnesty International recorded at least 883 executions in 20 countries in 2022, up by 53% from 2021 (at least 579 executions).

Reasons to abolish the death penalty

It is irreversible and mistakes happen

Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Since 1973, for example, more than 191 prisoners sent to death row in the USA have later been exonerated or released from death row on grounds of innocence. Others have been executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.

It does not deter crime

Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as a way to deter people from committing crime. This claim has been repeatedly discredited, and there is no evidence that the death penalty is any more effective in reducing crime than life imprisonment.

It is often used within skewed justice systems

In many cases recorded by Amnesty International, people were executed after being convicted in grossly unfair trials, on the basis of torture-tainted evidence and with inadequate legal representation. In some countries death sentences are imposed as the mandatory punishment for certain offences, meaning that judges are not able to consider the circumstances of the crime or of the defendant before sentencing.

It is discriminatory

The weight of the death penalty is disproportionally carried by those with less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds or belonging to a racial, ethnic or religious minority. This includes having limited access to legal representation, for example, or being at greater disadvantage in their experience of the criminal justice system.

It is used as a political tool

The authorities in some countries, for example Iran and Sudan, use the death penalty to punish political opponents.

What is Amnesty International doing to abolish the death penalty?

For over 45 years, Amnesty International has been campaigning to abolish the death penalty around the world.

Amnesty International monitors its use by all states to expose and hold to account governments that continue to use the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We publish a report annually, reporting figures and analysing trends for each country. Amnesty International's latest report, Death Sentences and Executions 2022, was released in May 2023.

The organization's work to oppose the death penalty takes many forms, including targeted, advocacy and campaign based projects in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia-Pacific, Americas and Europe and Central Asia , and Middle East and North Africa regions; strengthening national and international standards against its use, including by supporting the successful adoption of resolutions by the UN General Assembly on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty; and applying pressure on cases that face imminent execution. We also support actions and work by the abolitionist movement, at national, regional and global level.

When Amnesty International started its work in 1977, only 16 countries had totally abolished the death penalty. Today, that number has risen to 112 - more than half the world's countries. More than two-thirds are abolitionist in law or practice.

Case Studies

Saved from death row: Hafez Ibrahim

Thanks to Amnesty's campaigning efforts, the execution of Hafez Ibrahim, from Yemen, was stopped not once, but twice. Hafez, who was accused of a crime he insists he didn't commit, first faced a firing squad in 2005. He was taken to a small yard in a Yemeni prison and brought before a row of officers with rifles in hand. He thought that moment would be his last.

Just before he was about to be shot, he was taken back to his cell, with no explanation. "I was lost, I did not understand what was happening. I later learned that Amnesty International had called on the Yemeni President to stop my execution and the message was heard," Hafez said.

In 2007, Hafez was about to be executed again when he sent a mobile text message to Amnesty International. "They are about to execute us." Hafez said.

It was a message that saved his life. The message sparked an international campaign, persuading the President to stop the execution for a second time.

Now Hafez is a lawyer helping juveniles who languish on death row corridors across Yemen.

Activists on a mission: Souleymane Sow

Amnesty International's work to abolish the death penalty is also bolstered by its incredible activists, who take it upon themselves to campaign against this abhorrent practice.

Souleymane Sow, has been volunteering with Amnesty International since he was a student in France. Inspired to make a difference, he returned to Guinea, set up a local group of Amnesty International volunteers and got to work. Their aim? To promote the importance of human rights, educate people on these issues and abolish the death penalty in Guinea. Along with 34 NGOs, they finally achieved their goal in 2017.

"My colleagues and I lobbied against the death penalty every day for five months. In 2016, Guinea's National Assembly voted in favour of a new criminal code which removed the death sentence from the list of applicable penalties. Last year [2017], they did the same in the military court, too," said Souleymane.

"It was the first time so many NGOs had come together to campaign on an issue. People said they were happy with our work and they could see that change is possible. Most of all, it inspired us to continue campaigning."

It was such an incredible achievement - and it showed the importance of people power.
Souleymane Sow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amnesty opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception. Here's why.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On January 28 1953 Derek Bentley was hanged for the murder of a policeman despite protests in the house of commons. This is how the Guardian reported the event.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Scottish government is considering legalising same sex marriage. From Scotland, Ernie Rea discusses the issue with Prof John Haldane, the Rev John Bell, and Bashir Maan.

This week's Beyond Belief comes from Scotland, where the Scottish government is considering legalising same sex marriage. A period of public consultation has provoked a huge response from many religious groups who are opposed, yet the opinion polls are generally in favour. Civil partnership ceremonies have been legal in Scotland since 2005 and include the possibility of a religious blessing afterwards. So why is there a need for this further step? What is marriage? Is it a human or a divine institution? And would such a law, if passed, lead to moral anarchy, as some have claimed?
Joining Ernie Rea to discuss same sex marriage are John Haldane, Professor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrew's, the Reverend John Bell, a Church of Scotland minister and Bashir Maan, Former Convenor of the Muslim Council of Scotland.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - Beyond Belief, Same Sex Marriage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Scottish government is considering legalising same sex marriage. From Scotland, Ernie Rea discusses the issue with Prof John Haldane, the Rev John Bell, and Bashir Maan. This week's Beyond Belief comes from Scotland, where the Scottish government is considering legalising same sex marriage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ireland has officially passed the same-sex marriage referendum with 1.2 million people voting in its favour. The result was confirmed just before 7pm on Saturday although the result was clear from very early in the count. The Yes vote prevailed by 62 to 38 per cent with a large 60.5 per cent turnout.

In total, 1,201,607 people voted in favour with 734,300 against, giving a majority of 467,307. The total valid poll was 1,935,907.

Roscommon-South Leitrim was the only county to reject same-sex marriage. The No vote there finished with 51.4 per cent.

Donegal, against some expectations, approved the amendment to the Constitution by a small margin. Donegal South West was on a razor edge with 50.1 per cent voting Yes, representing a margin of just 33 votes.

A referendum presented simultaneously on reducing the permissible age for presidential candidates was roundly defeated.

The Yes vote in Dublin in the same-sex marriage referendum was particularly pronounced.

Dublin Midwest recorded a Yes vote of 70.9 per cent, Dublin South West returned 71.3 per cent, Dún Laoghaire 71.6 per cent, Dublin North West 70.6 per cent and Dublin South Central 72.3 per cent, all in keeping with the 70 per cent-plus positive vote that had been anticipated in the capital.

As the result emerged on Saturday afternoon thousands of people gathered in the courtyard of Dublin Castle amid scenes of widespread jubilation.

Senior politicians welcomed the result, with Minister for Health Leo Varadkar saying the overwhelming Yes vote makes Ireland a "beacon of light" for the rest of the world in terms of liberty and equality.

"It's a historical day for Ireland," he told RTÉ, a "social revolution", adding that had any constituencies voted No, it would only have been a handful. In the end there was just one. Mr Varadkar revealed publically during the referendum campaign that he was gay.

Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said it was now time to focus on other myriad inequalities in Irish society.

"I have the strong belief - there is a strong belief in the church - about the nature of marriage and the family," he said, after the result was beyond dispute.

"I would like to have seen that the rights of gay and lesbian men and women could have been respected without changing the definition of marriage. That hasn't happened, but that is the world we live in today."

The eyes of the world have been trained on Ireland with the story featuring prominently in international media throughout the weekend.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny said the referendum turnout showed the "palpable movement" of people wanting to be involved.

He particularly noted how young people had travelled around the country to "to put a single mark" on a ballot paper, demonstrating the value of the issue at hand.

Paul Moran of Millward Brown told RTÉ voter turnout had proved vital and that youth had driven the result, if not entirely deciding it. Social media has played a central role, he said.

No campaigners congratulated the Yes side. Prominent No campaigner and director of the Iona Institute David Quinn seemed to concede the vote shortly after counting began when he tweeted: "Congratulations to the Yes site. Well done."

The Iona Institute issued a statement congratulating the Yes side "on their win" which they described as "a handsome victory".

"We hope the Government will address the concerns voters on the No side have about the implications for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience," it concluded.

No campaigner Senator Ronan Mullen said he was not surprised by the seemingly "very substantial majority" in the Yes vote but remains concerned about changes to the Constitution and its negative impacts.

Nobody in the No campaign thought it was going to be easy, he said.

"We are operating in a political time and place in Irish culture", up against a very skilled Yes campaign which had the support of all political parties.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames, who also campaigned for a No vote, said the referendum "for me was never anti-gay". She said she had switched her vote from Yes to No simply because of her concerns around constitutional change and its effect on a child's birthright.

The No advocacy group Mothers and Fathers Matter expressed "warm congratulations" to the Yes side but said that one in three Irish people - the vote ratio - were not represented by the political establishment.

Yes campaigner and Fianna Fáil Senator Averil Power said gay campaigners who told their stories on the doorsteps of voters had "helped to change Ireland for all of us", not just the gay community.

She said she had seen many of them reduced to tears by the experience they had during the campaign. For them, it was often "an incredibly difficult thing to do".

Senator David Norris, who fought from the 1970s to 1993 to have homosexuality decriminalised, welcomed the result. "I believe that by the end of today gay people will be equal in this country. I think it's wonderful," he said.

Minister for Children James Reilly said while the same-sex marriage referendum yes vote is strong in Dublin, it is also strong around the country. He says a lot of voters have been thinking about their grandchildren and giving them the same opportunities in life, should they be gay.

US vice president Joe Biden tweeted: "We welcome Ireland's support for equality #LoveWins."

As with the last referendum, media facilities were made available at Dublin Castle, and a large international contingent was in attendance.

Following calls from politicians and members of the public on Friday Minister of State with responsibility for the OPW Simon Harris announced that Dublin Castle would also be open to 2,000 members of the public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ireland becomes first country to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ireland has officially passed the same-sex marriage referendum with 1.2 million people voting in its favour. The result was confirmed just before 7pm on Saturday although the result was clear from very early in the count. The Yes vote prevailed by 62 to 38 per cent with a large 60.5 per cent turnout.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he first working Monday back after the Christmas break is wryly dubbed 'Divorce Day' by lawyers who typically see a spike in couples considering divorce.

Divorce Day this year falls on Monday, January 6 when solicitors across the country will expect to be fielding more enquiries from couples unhappy in their marriage.

Experts say the stress of trying to create the perfect Christmas, along with money troubles after the festive break, are the main reasons why married couples decide to split at this time of year.

New research from Richard Nelson solicitors has found that searches for 'I want a divorce' rose by 230 per cent in the first week of January 2020 compared to December 2019.

Relationship charity Relate also says it receives a peak in calls in January, as tensions come to a head over Christmas and families are pushed to boiling point.

What is Divorce Day?

'Divorce Day' is a term used by lawyers and law firms to typically describe the time of year when they receive a surge of new enquiries from couples about divorce.

The day is on the first Monday of the year when you're back at work, when bank balances are low and tensions are high.

Amicable says more relationships break down in January than any other month and that on Divorce Day, internet searches about divorce and divorce enquiries peak.

What is the divorce rate in the UK?

The latest divorce figures, released last year, revealed the divorce rate for heterosexual couples in the UK dropped dramatically in 2018 with 90,871 divorces of heterosexual couples in England and Wales compared with 101,669 divorces in 2017.

According to the Office for National Statistics, there were 7.5 divorces of opposite sex couples per 1,000 married men and women in 2018, representing the lowest rates since 1971 and a 10.6 per cent decrease since 2017.

Experts said this could be down to the fact that fewer couples are choosing to get married.

While divorce rates for same-sex couples increased by more than a quarter from 2017 to 2018 - rising from 338 in 2017 to 428 in 2018 - Nicola Haines of the ONS has previously said this was 'not surprising' since marriages of same-sex couples have only been possible in England and Wales since March 2014.

Previous ONS figures for 2017 found the divorce rate was highest for men aged 45-49 and women aged 40-44, which Relate relationship counsellor Gurpreet Singh suggested was because couples had reached the stage in their life when "all the distractions have finished".

He told the Standard: "You reach that stage of life when you have the money, the children have left home and you don't know if it is the person you want to spend your days with.

"The relationship is now just the two of you and this is why people end up in arguments."

People are waiting until they are older before they get divorced /

What is the most common reason for divorce?

According to the ONS figures, unreasonable behaviour was cited as the most common reason for both heterosexual and same-sex divorce.

Around 46.3 per cent of couple petitioned on these grounds in opposite-sex marriages, while 76.2 per cent of same-sex couples divorced for this reason.

Why do so many people file for divorce in January?

Mr Singh said: "Any post-holiday break, when you get a period of intense time with each other, you start to wonder if you belong together.

"Anxieties come up and you get time to think and evaluate, and you come up wanting to work things out. People have different views and they end up in arguments."

Not only does January fall after a holiday period, but Christmas is also a stressful time, which Mr Singh said can make trivial comments escalate into arguments.

He said: "Your argument might start with the dishes before escalating to 'you never listen to me'. All you need is a trigger for it to escalate.

"You end up evaluating when you have a bit more time to yourself. Most of the time you're taking care of things rather than wondering what's next in your life."

How to avoid a relationship breakdown over Christmas

Relate has issued a seven-point list to help you avoid any fallouts over the festive break, including cutting back on alcohol, sharing the workload and making time for yourself and your partner.

Budgets are important to stick to as is communication, with Mr Singh saying that "listening is the operative word".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Divorce Day: Why are couples more like to split in January?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he first working Monday back after the Christmas break is wryly dubbed 'Divorce Day' by lawyers who typically see a spike in couples considering divorce. Divorce Day this year falls on Monday, January 6 when solicitors across the country will expect to be fielding more enquiries from couples unhappy in their marriage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than seven decades after Derek Bentley was hung for a crime he did not commit, surviving family members and campaigners came together to lay a wreath at his grave. The commemoration was organised by the legal charity APPEAl! which launched a campaign video to mark the anniversary featuring Christopher Eccleston reprising his role as Bentley in the 1991 film Let Him Have It.

In 1953 Derek Bentley, aged 19, was convicted of the murder of PC Sidney Miles and sentenced to death. It is the most infamous example of the use of joint enterprise law. Bentley was found guilty despite neither possessing nor firing a gun and giving himself to the police without violence. His co-defendant Christopher Craig, who fired the gun, was too young to be executed and served only 10 years in prison. The police officer is said to have asked Craig to hand over the gun and the prosecution case rested on the ambiguous words he allegedly spoke - 'Let him have it, Chris' - interpreted by the court as an incitement to murder.

Bentley was one of the last men in Britain to be sentenced to the death penalty and the furore over the case contributed to its abolishment. His conviction was eventually quashed in 1998, after years of campaigning by his father and sister.

On Tuesday this week a brief ceremony was lead by Bentley's niece Maria Bentley Dingwall beside his grave in Croydon cemetery. Others present were Emily Bolton, director of APPEAL, families from the campaign group JENGBA and campaigner Bruce Kent, member of Progressing Prisoners Maintaining Innocence. Maria proclaimed they were joined in their determination to keep the case in public memory, 'lest we forget the miscarriages of justice that still occur today'.

Flowers laid at the grave carried messages from the group Bound by Injustice, families of prisoners represented by APPEAL. One read 'For Derek Bentley and all others who have suffered injustice at the hands of the system R.I.P and we will continue to fight the good fight in your name' (Ashley Artman). Abigail Wheatcroft, from APPEAL, said the occasion was a reminder of the widespread impact of miscarriages of justice on families across generations; 'so many lives are lost when the system gets it wrong'.

Bentley's case is regarded as one of the most infamous uses of the legal doctrine of 'Joint Enterprise'. Gloria Morrison, founder of JENGBA, who are currently supporting thousands of prisoners serving life sentences says, 'unfortunately people do not realise how frequently joint enterprise is still being used today in our courts and children as young as 13 are being given life sentences for crimes they did not directly commit.' Morrison adds, 'Joint Enterprise is and was a stain on the British Justice system and needs abolishing or Derek's pardon will have been in vain.'

The system didn't listen... and it's still not listening

Christopher Eccleston, who played Derek Bentley in the film Let Him Have It, revisited the role in a video supporting APPEAL. Eccleston plays a wrongfully convicted prisoner facing a similar plight today.

'My career was built on Derek's scaffold. It was an honour to play Derek in Let Him Have It back then, and doing this campaign clip for APPEAL felt like a natural extension of that. The system did not listen to Derek then and it is still not listening to people like him today.'
Christopher Eccleston

This week's anniversary 'reminds us that wrongful convictions are inevitable, and that when they occur, we do not have unlimited time to set them right', said APPEAL founder Emily Bolton. 'At APPEAL, the prisoners we represent have only one life, and that life has been stolen from them by a criminal justice system that is in denial about its mistakes. The Court of Appeal needs to treat these cases as emergencies, so that there are no more 'Victims of British Justice', as Derek Bentley is described on his gravestone.'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'A victim of British Injustice': Derek Bentley remembered

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than seven decades after Derek Bentley was hung for a crime he did not commit, surviving family members and campaigners came together to lay a wreath at his grave. The commemoration was organised by the legal charity APPEAl!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One in seven women in the UK have been bullied into either getting pregnant or having an abortion, The Independent can reveal.

An exclusive study found 14 per cent of women have experienced coercion over reproduction, having either felt pressured into conceiving or having a termination.

While some eight per cent of women have experienced pressure to become pregnant, seven per cent of women have been pushed into having an abortion, the research by polling company D-Cyfor concluded.

A previous report by the British Medical Journal defines the phenomenon of coercion over reproduction as "actions that interfere with a woman's reproductive intentions and any actions that pressurise or coerce a woman into initiating or terminating a pregnancy".

Experts warn the proportion of women who have experienced such coercion will be significantly higher than 14 per cent because that figure does not include those who have had birth control pills hidden or stolen, condoms sabotaged or removed during sex, or a partner lie to them about having a vasectomy.

Katherine O'Brien, a spokesperson for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas), the UK's largest abortion provider, said she had regularly come across the issue of pregnancy coercion, but there was a profound lack of awareness and understanding about the issue among the general public.

"Reproductive coercion is wider than just being forced to terminate or continue with a pregnancy," she said.

"Society might not see a partner tampering with contraception as a serious issue, but it is.

"There is a lot more that we need to understand on this. Women's fertility is used as a method of control against them. Often what automatically springs to mind when we think about reproductive coercion is pressuring someone into ending a pregnancy and not enough is thought about the other side.

"These survey results show that we can put as many robust policies and procedures in abortion services as we like, but women will still be pressured to continue a pregnancy."

She noted that doctors were very careful to ensure the women were "willingly and freely" consenting to an abortion - saying doctors who provide abortions without the mother's explicit consent face jail.

Ms O'Brien, who has worked at Bpas for six years, called for medics and police to work together to learn more about pregnancy coercion.

The need for consent in all medical procedures, not just abortion, is founded in common law and the principle of bodily autonomy. For consent to be valid and legal, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.

"We know that domestic violence can escalate during pregnancy," she added. "Women who we speak to in coercive relationships ask about methods of contraception their partner can't control like condoms or the pill, and we advise them on other long-term forms of contraception."

Best Beginnings, a charity which aims to give children the best possible start in life, estimates over a third of domestic violence starts or gets worse when a woman is pregnant and 40 to 60 per cent of women experiencing domestic violence are abused while pregnant.

It also estimates more than 14 per cent of maternal deaths occur in women who have told their health professional they are in an abusive relationship.

While reproductive coercion is not a new phenomenon, it only appears to have been defined as a concept in a 2010 study in the journal Contraception.

Amy Bucknall, a safeguarding nurse for UK abortion provider Marie Stopes, said: "It is barbaric when you think about women being forced to either stop a pregnancy or have a pregnancy.

"Coercive control goes both ways in reproductive health, women can be forced to continue with a pregnancy and may also be coerced into not continuing with a pregnancy. Both are emotionally damaging to a woman. Carrying a child and going through a pregnancy is such a high-risk thing. It is not something people should be forced into."

While the maternal mortality rate in the UK is 9.8 women per 100,000 pregnancies, maternal mortality is a massive problem worldwide. Every day, approximately 830 women die from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth.

Ms Bucknall, who has worked in the sexual health sector for a decade, said Marie Stopes had come across cases where women were experiencing pregnancy coercion from family members.

Although the law has long stated it is a woman's right to make a decision about her pregnancy, she said the coercion was often "particularly for cultural reasons" and she had encountered parents trying to force their way into abortion consultations.

"It can be really tricky for women who have to keep their abortion very, very secret from their parents," she added.

The nurse said Marie Stopes had encountered cases where young women were scared to have an abortion or continue with a pregnancy because their partner had nude photos of them and they were terrified they would become victims of revenge porn.

"Women in abusive relationships are so scared about what will happen when they are pregnant because abuse gets worse and they have to protect the child's life," she added.

Molly* told Marie Stopes she did not want another baby but her partner had been pressuring her to have it - saying he does not agree with abortion and would be very upset if she terminated the pregnancy.

The mother-of-five, whose children are all under the age of seven, told the service she was unable to mentally or physically cope with another child, as well as feeling exhausted and isolated due to having no life outside of motherhood.

During a counselling session with the charity, Molly revealed her partner was controlling and abusive, and that she was scared of him. He had stopped her from working or getting an education throughout their relationship and she felt another pregnancy was intended to make her stay with him and keep her trapped in the relationship, as she had threatened to leave him.

Marie Stopes put Molly in touch with a local domestic violence charity and social services who helped her safely escape the relationship.

Leila* contacted the charity to get an abortion because her partner had threatened to kill her and kick her in the stomach if she did not terminate her pregnancy. While he had never physically harmed her in the past, she was terrified of him and noted his family were also leaving her fearful. She said she did not feel able to have a baby with him despite being desperate to be a mother.

She eventually decided she wanted to continue the pregnancy and flee from her partner who had been emotionally abusive to her for many years - she had undergone two previous terminations but had not been able to tell anyone at the time.

The research was based on a sample of 566 female adults and was weighted to be representative of the UK population.

Support free-thinking journalism and attend Independent events

The study found that while it is chiefly carried out by intimate partners, it can also be perpetrated by the wider family and in organised crime, with young people and ethnic minorities particularly vulnerable.

It called for screening to take place in maternity, sexual and reproductive health and abortion services and GP surgeries in the UK.
*Molly and Leila are aliases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
One in seven UK women 'forced to have either a baby or an abortion'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One in seven women in the UK have been bullied into either getting pregnant or having an abortion, The Independent can reveal. An exclusive study found 14 per cent of women have experienced coercion over reproduction, having either felt pressured into conceiving or having a termination.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Wide Awake by Diana Winston | Waterstones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Buy Wide Awake by Diana Winston from Waterstones today! Click and Collect from your local Waterstones or get FREE UK delivery on orders over £25.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How confident can we be that Jesus Christ actually lived?

The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur.

What do Christian writings tell us?

The value of this evidence is that it is both early and detailed. The first Christian writings to talk about Jesus are the epistles of St Paul, and scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus's death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died. These all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine. It is also difficult to imagine why Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place - under the aegis of the Roman empire - where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.

What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?

As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes (probably turning Josephus's negative account into a more positive one), but the other is not suspicious - a reference to James, the brother of "Jesus, the so-called Christ".

About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) - reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians - Pliny writes of their "pig-headed obstinacy" and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.

Did ancient writers discuss the existence of Jesus?

Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.

How controversial is the existence of Jesus now?

In a recent book, the French philosopher Michel Onfray talks of Jesus as a mere hypothesis, his existence as an idea rather than as a historical figure. About 10 years ago, The Jesus Project was set up in the US; one of its main questions for discussion was that of whether or not Jesus existed. Some authors have even argued that Jesus of Nazareth was doubly non-existent, contending that both Jesus and Nazareth are Christian inventions. It is worth noting, though, that the two mainstream historians who have written most against these hypersceptical arguments are atheists: Maurice Casey (formerly of Nottingham University) and Bart Ehrman (University of North Carolina). They have issued stinging criticisms of the "Jesus-myth" approach, branding it pseudo-scholarship. Nevertheless, a recent survey discovered that 40% of adults in England did not believe that Jesus was a real historical figure.

Is there any archaeological evidence for Jesus?

Part of the popular confusion around the historicity of Jesus may be caused by peculiar archaeological arguments raised in relation to him. Recently there have been claims that Jesus was a great-grandson of Cleopatra, complete with ancient coins allegedly showing Jesus wearing his crown of thorns. In some circles, there is still interest in the Shroud of Turin, supposedly Jesus's burial shroud. Pope Benedict XVI stated that it was something that "no human artistry was capable of producing" and an "icon of Holy Saturday".

It is hard to find historians who regard this material as serious archaeological data, however. The documents produced by Christian, Jewish and Roman writers form the most significant evidence.

These abundant historical references leave us with little reasonable doubt that Jesus lived and died. The more interesting question - which goes beyond history and objective fact - is whether Jesus died and lived.

Simon Gathercole is Reader in New Testament Studies at the University of Cambridge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Filled with illustrations, stories and wondrous folk tales, this accessible book introduces philosophy to young readers.

'A thousand mile journey starts with one step...'

'Adventures in Philosophy - Stories & Quests for Thinking Heroes' is written by author Brendan O'Donoghue and published by Gill books. This thoughtful book aims to promote curiosity among children and encourage them to question the world around them. Readers discover the tools for map-making in philosophy, and follow their very own thought compass, which will direct them an enlightening philosophical adventure.

It was a real pleasure to illustrate the collection illustrated stories and wondrous folk tales, each evoking meaningful philosophical questions. An illustrated end section devoted to philosopher biographies contains 10 illustrated portraits of thinking heroes from Mary-Jane Rubenstein to Karl Marx.

'Paula McGloin's illustrations contribute to the accessibility of this exercise in clarity of thought, wonder and knowledge of previous thinkers.'
Praise from Sabina Coyne Higgins

Thank you for visiting my portfolio!
To see more of my work please follow me on instagram or twitter.
Read more about Adventures in Philosophy here!

Author Brendan O'Donoghue, Illustrated by Paula McGloin, Published by Gill Books

October 2018, Language(s) : English, soon French and Italian

Format: Hardback, 224 pages Dimensions: 240 x 178 mm

↑ Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Paula McGloin - Adventures in Philosophy Book

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Filled with illustrations, stories and wondrous folk tales, this accessible book introduces philosophy to young readers. 'A thousand mile journey starts with one step...' 'Adventures in Philosophy - Stories & Quests for Thinking Heroes' is written by author Brendan O'Donoghue and published by Gill books.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hinduism Beliefs, Symbols

Some basic Hindu concepts include:

Hinduism embraces many religious ideas. For this reason, it's sometimes referred to as a "way of life" or a "family of religions," as opposed to a single, organized religion.

Most forms of Hinduism are henotheistic, which means they worship a single deity, known as "Brahman," but still recognize other gods and goddesses. Followers believe there are multiple paths to reaching their god.

Hindus believe in the doctrines of samsara (the continuous cycle of life, death, and reincarnation) and karma (the universal law of cause and effect).

One of the key thoughts of Hinduism is "atman," or the belief in soul. This philosophy holds that living creatures have a soul, and they're all part of the supreme soul. The goal is to achieve "moksha," or salvation, which ends the cycle of rebirths to become part of the absolute soul.

One fundamental principle of the religion is the idea that people's actions and thoughts directly determine their current life and future lives.

Hindus strive to achieve dharma, which is a code of living that emphasizes good conduct and morality.

Hindus revere all living creatures and consider the cow a sacred animal.

Food is an important part of life for Hindus. Most don't eat beef or pork, and many are vegetarians.

Hinduism is closely related to other Indian religions, including Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism.

There are two primary symbols associated with Hinduism, the om and the swastika. The word swastika means "good fortune" or "being happy" in Sanskrit, and the symbol represents good luck. (A hooked, diagonal variation of the swastika later became associated with Germany's Nazi Party when they made it their symbol in 1920.)

The om symbol is composed of three Sanskrit letters and represents three sounds (a, u and m), which when combined are considered a sacred sound. The om symbol is often found at family shrines and in Hindu temples.

Hinduism Holy Books

Hindus value many sacred writings as opposed to one holy book.

The primary sacred texts, known as the Vedas, were composed around 1500 B.C. This collection of verses and hymns was written in Sanskrit and contains revelations received by ancient saints and sages.

The Vedas are made up of:

Hindus believe that the Vedas transcend all time and don't have a beginning or an end.

The Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, 18 Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata are also considered important texts in Hinduism.

Origins of Hinduism

Most scholars believe Hinduism started somewhere between 2300 B.C. and 1500 B.C. in the Indus Valley, near modern-day Pakistan. But many Hindus argue that their faith is timeless and has always existed.

Unlike other religions, Hinduism has no one founder but is instead a fusion of various beliefs.

Around 1500 B.C., the Indo-Aryan people migrated to the Indus Valley, and their language and culture blended with that of the indigenous people living in the region. There's some debate over who influenced whom more during this time.

The period when the Vedas were composed became known as the "Vedic Period" and lasted from about 1500 B.C. to 500 B.C. Rituals, such as sacrifices and chanting, were common in the Vedic Period.

The Epic, Puranic and Classic Periods took place between 500 B.C. and A.D. 500. Hindus began to emphasize the worship of deities, especially Vishnu, Shiva and Devi.

The concept of dharma was introduced in new texts, and other faiths, such as Buddhism and Jainism, spread rapidly.

Hinduism vs. Buddhism

Hinduism and Buddhism have many similarities. Buddhism, in fact, arose out of Hinduism, and both believe in reincarnation, karma and that a life of devotion and honor is a path to salvation and enlightenment.

But some key differences exist between the two religions: Buddhism rejects the caste system of Hinduism and does away with the rituals, the priesthood and the gods that are integral to the Hindu faith.

Medieval and Modern Hindu History

The Medieval Period of Hinduism lasted from about A.D. 500 to 1500. New texts emerged, and poet-saints recorded their spiritual sentiments during this time.

In the 7th century, Muslim Arabs began invading areas in India. During parts of the Muslim Period, which lasted from about 1200 to 1757, Islamic rulers prevented Hindus from worshipping their deities, and some temples were destroyed.

Mahatma Gandhi

Between 1757 and 1947, the British controlled India. At first, the new rulers allowed Hindus to practice their religion without interference. But later, Christian missionaries sought to convert and westernize the people.

Many reformers emerged during the British Period. The well-known politician and peace activist, Mahatma Gandhi, led a movement that pushed for India's independence.

The partition of India occurred in 1947, and Gandhi was assassinated in 1948. British India was split into what are now the independent nations of India and Pakistan, and Hinduism became the major religion of India.

Starting in the 1960s, many Hindus migrated to North America and Britain, spreading their faith and philosophies to the western world.

Hindu Gods

Hindus worship many gods and goddesses in addition to Brahman, who is believed to be the supreme God force present in all things.

Some of the most prominent deities include:

Brahma: the god responsible for the creation of the world and all living things

Vishnu: the god that preserves and protects the universe

Shiva: the god that destroys the universe in order to recreate it

Devi: the goddess that fights to restore dharma

Krishna: the god of compassion, tenderness and love

Lakshmi: the goddess of wealth and purity

Saraswati: the goddess of learning

Places of Worship

Hindu worship, which is known as "puja," typically takes place in the Mandir (temple). Followers of Hinduism can visit the Mandir any time they please.

Hindus can also worship at home, and many have a special shrine dedicated to certain gods and goddesses.

The giving of offerings is an important part of Hindu worship. It's a common practice to present gifts, such as flowers or oils, to a god or goddess.

Additionally, many Hindus take pilgrimages to temples and other sacred sites in India.

Hinduism Sects

Hinduism has many sects, and the following are often considered the four major denominations.

Shaivism is one of the largest denominations of Hinduism, and its followers worship Shiva, sometimes known as "The Destroyer," as their supreme deity.

Shaivism spread from southern India into Southeast Asia and is practiced in Vietnam, Cambodia and Indonesia as well as India. Like the other major sects of Hinduism, Shaivism considers the Vedas and the Upanishads to be sacred texts.

Vaishnavism is considered the largest Hindu sect, with an estimated 640 million followers, and is practiced worldwide. It includes sub-sects that are familiar to many non-Hindus, including Ramaism and Krishnaism.

Vaishnavism recognizes many deities, including Vishnu, Lakshmi, Krishna and Rama, and the religious practices of Vaishnavism vary from region to region across the Indian subcontinent.

Shaktism is somewhat unique among the four major traditions of Hinduism in that its followers worship a female deity, the goddess Shakti (also known as Devi).

Shaktism is sometimes practiced as a monotheistic religion, while other followers of this tradition worship a number of goddesses. This female-centered denomination is sometimes considered complementary to Shaivism, which recognizes a male deity as supreme.

The Smarta or Smartism tradition of Hinduism is somewhat more orthodox and restrictive than the other four mainstream denominations. It tends to draw its followers from the Brahman upper caste of Indian society.

Smartism followers worship five deities: Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, Ganesh and Surya. Their temple at Sringeri is generally recognized as the center of worship for the denomination.

Some Hindus elevate the Hindu trinity, which consists of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Others believe that all the deities are a manifestation of one.

Hindu Caste System

The caste system is a social hierarchy in India that divides Hindus based on their karma and dharma. Many scholars believe the system dates back more than 3,000 years.

The four main castes (in order of prominence) include:

1. Brahmin: the intellectual and spiritual leaders

2. Kshatriyas: the protectors and public servants of society

3. Vaisyas: the skillful producers

4. Shudras: the unskilled laborers

Many subcategories also exist within each caste. The "Untouchables" are a class of citizens that are outside the caste system and considered to be in the lowest level of the social hierarchy.

For centuries, the caste system determined every aspect of a person's social, professional and religious status in India.

When India became an independent nation, its constitution banned discrimination based on caste.

Today, the caste system still exists in India but is loosely followed. Many of the old customs are overlooked, but some traditions, such as only marrying within a specific caste, are still embraced.

Hindus observe numerous sacred days, holidays and festivals.

Some of the most well-known include:

Diwali: the festival of lights

Navaratri: a celebration of fertility and harvest

Holi: a spring festival

Krishna Janmashtami: a tribute to Krishna's birthday

Raksha Bandhan: a celebration of the bond between brother and sister

Maha Shivaratri: the great festival of Shiva

Sources:

Hinduism Facts. Sects of Hinduism.
Hindu American Foundation. Hinduism Basics.
History of Hinduism, BBC.
Hinduism Fast Facts, CNN.

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hinduism is a compilation of many traditions and philosophies and is considered by many scholars to be the world's oldest religion, dating back more than 4,000 years. Today it is the third-largest religion behind Christianity and Islam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jesus was the Messiah (Christ), the Son of God who was crucified for the sins of humanity before rising from the dead, according to Christian Gospels and early Christian writings.

According to the Gospels, Jesus, who was born around 4 B.C., was able to perform supernatural feats such as healing a wide range of diseases by simply touching people or speaking to them. He supposedly also had the ability to walk on water, instantly create vast amounts of fish and bread, resurrect the dead, rise from the dead himself, calm storms and exorcise demons from people.

The stories told about him have led many scholars to explore these questions: What was Jesus really like? Did he really exist? Today, many of the supernatural feats Jesus is reported to have performed are regarded by scientists as impossible to do - certainly by someone who lived 2,000 years ago.

Trying to understand what Jesus was really like is complicated by the fact that the earliest surviving texts that discuss Jesus date to the second century A.D., about 100 years after the life of Jesus - although, presumably they were copied from documents that date to the first century. In 2015, there were claims that a copy of the Gospel of Mark dating to the first century had been found, although it now appears that this copy dates to the second or third century A.D.

Despite many challenges, recent archaeological and historical research has allowed scholars to shed light on several aspects of Jesus' life, such as what he looked like and what life was like in his hometown of Nazareth.

Birth and early life

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary, who was a virgin. The year of Jesus' birth is debated by scholars, who generally place it sometime between 7 B.C. and 1 B.C. The tradition of Jesus being born on Dec. 25 did not come about until centuries later, and scholars generally agree that he was not born on that day. [ Pagan Roots? 5 Surprising Facts About Christmas]

The Gospel of Matthew talks about how magi (a word sometimes translated as "wise men") came from the east, following the star of Bethlehem (which some scientists have speculated could be a comet or the planet Venus) and gave baby Jesus presents of gold, frankincense and myrrh. The Gospel also claims that King Herod was enraged when he heard of Jesus' birth and ordered him to be found and executed, at one point ordering every boy in Bethlehem who was two years or younger to be killed. Jesus and his family escaped by fleeing to Egypt and not returning until after Herod's death, the Gospel says. Today, scholars are doubtful that Herod tried to kill Jesus, noting that there is no evidence, outside of the Bible, that Herod was aware of Jesus.

The Gospels tell of how Jesus grew up in Nazareth with his mother, Mary, her husband, Joseph, and Jesus' brothers and sisters. Gospel stories tell how a man named John the Baptist foretold the coming of Jesus and baptized people who were seeking forgiveness for their sins.

The Gospel of Mark claims that Jesus worked as a carpenter when he was old enough, and that there was something of a rift between Jesus and his family.

This Gospel also claims that when Jesus returned to Nazareth after he was away, he was not well received. "A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home," Jesus said in Mark 6:4. [ 8 Ar chaeological Sites That Jesus May Have Visited]

Recent archaeological work carried out at Nazareth has identified two houses that date to the first century A.D. One of these houses was later venerated as the house that Jesus grew up in. Archaeological remains suggest that people in first century Nazareth were Jewish and less likely to embrace Greco-Roman culture than people who lived in the nearby town of Sepphoris.

(Image credit: Noyan Yalcin/Shutterstock)

Ministry

Scholars generally agree that Jesus didn't devote himself to his ministry until he was about 30 years old. This is based on the sequence of events told in the Bible which suggest that Jesus had not been ministering for long before he was crucified.

The Gospel accounts suggest that Jesus spent much of his ministry in the area around Galilee. They tell how Jesus generally avoided luxury, was happy to talk with "tax collectors" and "sinners," favored the poor and frequently clashed with Jewish religious leaders, who doubted his claim that he was the Messiah. Large crowds sometimes followed him, hoping that he would cure sick people, the Gospels say.

He sometimes clashed with his 12 disciples, scolding them when they showed a lack of faith or endurance. At one point he gave his disciples the ability to perform miracles in his name. When they were unable to exorcise an "impure spirit" from a boy, Jesus was furious. "'You unbelieving generation,' Jesus replied, 'how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?'" Mark 9:19.

Jesus spoke about the end times, saying that the skies will be darkened and "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines ..." Mark 13:8.

The Gospels claim that one of Jesus' disciples, Judas Iscariot, betrayed Jesus by making a deal with a group of Jewish religious leaders to help them arrest Jesus in exchange for money. The leaders then took Jesus before Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect (governor) of Judea, where he was put on trial. The stories told in the Gospels claim that Pilate was reluctant to find Jesus guilty but was pushed toward the verdict by a mob who wanted Jesus to be crucified. The stories claim that after Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb, he came back to life.

It's uncertain exactly when Jesus was crucified. Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea between A.D. 26 to 37 and his crucifixion would have occurred at some point within that time. The stories told in the Gospels indicate that Jesus' trial and crucifixion took place around Passover, a Jewish holiday that occurs in spring.

(Image credit: Painting by Cathy Fisher, showing shorter clothing and hair for Jesus, in accordance with the new results.)

What did Jesus look like?

Recent research led by Joan Taylor, professor of Christian Origins and Second Temple Judaism at King's College London, gives us an idea of what Jesus may have looked like.

Her research suggests that Jesus was likely around 5 feet 5 inches tall, had olive-brown skin with black hair, and likely kept his beard and hair short and well trimmed to keep out lice, which was a major problem at the time. Jesus' work as a carpenter and the fact that he traveled on foot, combined with the fact that Jesus likely wasn't able to eat regular meals, means that he was likely thin but somewhat muscular, wrote Taylor in her book "What Did Jesus Look Like?" (T&T Clark, 2018).

"Jesus was a man who was physical in terms of the labor that he came from," Taylor told Live Science. "He shouldn't be presented as [in] any way someone who was living a soft life, and sometimes that's the kind of image we get."
Additional resources:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jesus was the Messiah (Christ), the Son of God who was crucified for the sins of humanity before rising from the dead, according to Christian Gospels and early Christian writings. According to the Gospels, Jesus, who was born around 4 B.C., was able to perform supernatural feats such as healing a wide range of diseases by simply touching people or speaking to them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Judaism: Founder, Beliefs & Facts | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Judaism is the world’s oldest monotheistic religion, dating back nearly 4,000 years. Followers of Judaism believe in one God who revealed himself through ancient prophets. History is essential to understanding the Jewish faith, which is embedded in tradition, law and culture.