| Part of a series on |
| Euthanasia |
|---|
| Types |
| Animal · Child · Voluntary Non-voluntary · Involuntary |
| Views |
| Religious (Buddhist · Catholic) |
| Groups |
| Dignitas · Dignity in Dying Exit International |
| People |
| Jack Kevorkian · Philip Nitschke |
| Books |
| Final Exit The Peaceful Pill Handbook |
| Jurisdictions |
| Australia · Canada India · Mexico Netherlands · New Zealand Switzerland · United Kingdom United States |
| Laws |
|
Oregon Death with Dignity Act Washington Death with Dignity Act |
| Court cases |
| Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) Gonzales v. Oregon (2006) Baxter v. Montana (2009) |
| Alternatives |
| Assisted suicide Palliative care Principle of double effect Terminal sedation |
| Other issues |
| Suicide tourism Groningen Protocol Euthanasia device Euthanasia and the slippery slope |
Involuntary euthanasia occurs when euthanasia is performed on a person who is able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not choose to die, or because they were not asked.[1] It is typically, but not always, murder.[2] For example:
| “ | A soldier has their stomach blown open by a shell burst. They are in great pain and screaming in agony. They beg the army doctor to save their life. The doctor knows that they will die in ten minutes whatever happens. As he has no painkilling drugs with him he decides to spare the soldier further pain and shoots them dead.[2] | ” |
Involuntary euthanasia is contrasted with voluntary euthanasia (euthanasia performed with the patient's consent) and non-voluntary euthanasia (where the patient is unable to give their informed consent, for example when a patient is comatose or a child). Involuntary euthanasia is widely opposed and is regarded as a crime in legal jurisdictions, and is sometimes used as a reason for not changing laws relating to other forms of euthanasia.[3][4]
Historically, involuntary euthanasia has received some support from parts of the eugenics and pro-euthanasia movements, according to anti-euthanasia activist Ian Dowbiggin.[5] During the Second World War, the Nazis used involuntary euthanasia in their Action T4 programme.[6]
More recently, philosopher Brad Hooker noted that "we can distinguish between killing innocent people against their wishes but for their own good, and killing them for some other reason", although he also stated that such a distinction is not very useful and would be likely to scare people away from medical experts, and that he "cannot imagine how allowing involuntary euthanasia could generate benefits large enough to begin to offset this loss".[7]
Philosopher Peter Singer, in his book Practical Ethics, after arguing in favour of voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia also speaks of conceivable cases of justifiable involuntary euthanasia, but rejects the latter as "fortunately, more encountered in fiction than in reality."[8]