Talk:Euthanasia

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Buddhism

[edit]

"Buddhism

Since enlightenment is a major goal in the Buddhist religion, human existence is highly valued and therefore protected. In the Buddhist belief of rebirth and karma, one has infinite lifetimes until the process is completed through enlightenment.[90] Here, it is taught that one must experience one’s own karma as failing to do so could lead to other consequences.

In Buddhism, all disorders originate from the mental environment due to negative states of mind. This is because illness and other inevitable realities are linked to one’s karma.[90]

The decision made by a physician to ease the pain and suffering of terminally ill patients is viewed negatively in Buddhism. Rather, they view this act carried out by physicians as “harm intended as help”.[90] Moreover, if one’s karma (suffering) were to be intentionally disrupted, that suffering would then be experienced again in another life. Providing large doses of narcotics to a terminally-ill patient is heavily looked down upon as it does not allow for the patient to “leave in a peaceful manner”. Simply put, Buddhism advocates for “hospice care, not euthanasia”.[90] Ultimately, Buddhism teaches its followers to “accept and work with all aspects of life, including death”.[90]

Buddhism also teaches that physicians perform the act because the patient’s suffering and pain disturb the doctor’s mind. The physician then projects this disturbance onto the patient themselves through the act of euthanasia.[91] Therefore, for the benefit of both the patient and the physician, euthanasia is an unacceptable deed in Buddhism.

These Buddhist ethics are put in place to not only respect the tenants and virtues of Buddhism but also to prevent any selfish desires that either the family or physician may have.[91] The goal here is to protect both the patient as well as their enlightenment, and rejecting euthanasia adheres to this Buddhist goal."

Citations [90]. Euthanasia: A Buddhist perspective - JSTOR. Euthanasia: A Buddhist Perspective. (n.d.). https://www.jstor.org/stable/27505857 [91]. Chaicharoen, P., & Ratanakul, P. (n.d.). Letting-Go or Killing: Thai Buddhist Perspectives on Euthanasia. Eubios Ethics Institute -. https://www.eubios.info/EJ82/ej82c.htm Kitluvsmangos4ever (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence does not accurately define euthanasia

[edit]

Someone who can edit this locked page, please adjust the lead sentence to reflect that both the term and concept of "euthanasia" is not strictly proscribed to "ending pain and suffering" (which ultimately is a subjective matter). It also fundamentally includes involuntary euthanasia (as introduced, belatedly, in paragraph three), in which a subject's life is ended without consent (effectively to relieve the "pain and suffering" of whomever is responsible for it, whether individually, collectively, or by government policy.

This fundamental distinction needs to be worked into the defining term used in the lead sentence, which otherwise, simply, misleads (by offering an over-narrow description of the term without indicating a very different interpretation of the term exists). Different enough that it is construed in many instances as murder, and in others a matter of government policy (in one form or another) interpreted by others outside it variously as murder on the small scale and "genocide" or related concepts on the large. 2601:196:180:DC0:566:1463:F27E:721F (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to back up your claim? The Banner talk 09:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2601:... is absolutely right. I was plainly shocked to discover that the navigation popup for this article only mentions one, the positive, meaning of the word, as if the second, euphemistic meaning (as defined on wikt:euthanasia) did not exist. To ask for sources seems to be no adequate response to such a fundamental concern, especially given the wealth of sources about Nazi euthanasia. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m thinking of suggesting a change to the lead so it better reflects that euthanasia can include not just voluntary but also non-voluntary and involuntary forms. Right now, it reads like it’s only about relieving suffering with consent, which leaves out some key historical and ethical contexts. TenBlueEagles (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, even if (as the pro-dying lobby maintain), euthanasia is about "ending pain and suffering", then should not the article comment on the need for decent, well-funded, end of life care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c6:27a1:5401:ad33:facb:e977:b0fa (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the ida of "without consent" in the OP's comment come from? HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary euthanasia is not a real category of euthanasia

[edit]

It is also not mentioned for example by the NHS[1].

Involuntary euthanasia is an oxymoron. Euthanasia literally means "good death". A person who is killed against their willed does not have a good death. "Good murder" is like claiming "good torture", it does not exist, period. It is a form of gaslighting, not a real thing. Ybllaw (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copied parts of description in earlier parts of article (“…it’s considered murder”) to its own subsection. I wanted to add e.g., “and is not considered a form of euthanasia” but that’d probably need a citation.
Or we can remove it, or maybe change subheading title to Inv. euthanasia (murder). 海盐沙冰 (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least here in Australia, we openly speak of euthanising pets. Nobody asks the pets. It is therefore involuntary. Is it involuntary euthanasia? HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the user is primarily concerning euthanasia in humans, though. 海盐沙冰 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know that, but my point still stands. We DO speak of euthenasing animals. The OP was wrong to say "Involuntary euthanasia is an oxymoron." HiLo48 (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so maybe “inv. euth. in humans is considered murder and illegal in all nations (…)” would be less ambiguous? 海盐沙冰 (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we probably need to clarify early on that categorizations based on voluntary decisions might not / cannot be applied to non-humans, (at least until the day we find ways to have informed consent from animals, I guess.)
Something along the lines of “Types (human)” for section header 海盐沙冰 (talk) 03:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I was wrong. There is a context in which it is an oxymoron, for humans. Given their capability for communicating their wish without a doubt. Though even there there might be barriers I imagine such as language barriers, miscommunication, or intellectual disability.

As of 2024, dictionary definitions focus on euthanasia as the act of killing someone to prevent further suffering. There is no sense of whether the person agrees or is proactive in the situation

I see that this is already discussed in the section about a 2003 discussion by the European Association of Palliative Care Ethics Task Force.
Still I think that it seems too blunt to speak of three categories of euthanasia without elaborating.
This article seems to acknowledge that a "good death", which euthanasia etymologically literally means, is very hard to define. I don't know how to accurately interpret the εὐ in euthanasia. It means good or well according to Wiktionary.
In humans it is well known that capital punishment is often advertised as "humane" in e.g. the US, but that in reality there is no (known) truly humane way to execute a healthy and resisting person.
Is killing an animal (e.g. in hunting) quickly to end their pain quickly rather then let them suffer slowly considered euthanasia or is there another word for that? Ybllaw (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, found it Coup de grâce. Ybllaw (talk) 22:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how there is any way to argue without logical fallacy/cognitive dissonance that calling a coupe de grâce/mercy kill "good" isn't a euphemism.
I suppose it is hard to determine whether this topic is contributing anything to the page or just regurgitating emotional heaviness inherent in this topic.
As on change I can think of, perhaps under the heading "Involuntary euthanasia" include a see also link to the page Coup de grâce there as well? Like there is a see also for "Right to die" under "Voluntary euthanasia"? Ybllaw (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not asking is already included under non-voluntary euthanasia.
Putting down a problem pet (one who attacked humans) I am not sure if that is ever euthanasia? I don't think people call it a death sentence formally anywhere, even though that seems to be what it most closely resembles.
In any case, in humans that is called a death sentence, not "involuntary euthanasia". Ybllaw (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of switching off life support as a form of involuntary euthanasia. The Banner talk 01:34, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is normally going to be non-voluntary, unless the patient is able to communicate. - Bilby (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In ethics it is recognised as a category - voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary - just like the distinction between passive and active. It is then almost universally described as unethical. The Germans used what has been described as involuntary euthanasia in Akton T4, and while we are right to say it is better described as murder (which it was) the term was still used. The problem is that different societies have, at times, felt that those with serious disabilities or with injuries would suffer less if they had a quick death, even against their objections. I am very pleased that we do not belive that now, but it still needs to be acknowledged. - Bilby (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that there is a nice and simple BBC article which defined the three types, with examples: https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/volinvol.shtml - Bilby (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between mentioning it and listing it under the categories. You might also recognise abusive forms of shock therapy or attack therapy, but you shouldn't list them under "psychiatric methods". You should list them under a section like "history" or something. Ybllaw (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that your analogy really works - if a therapy is shown to be ineffective, it is no longer regarded as a type of therapy. In ethics, if we decide that an action is unethical, it does not stop being a possible action. Ethical discussions of euthanasia - such as the one I linked to - often raise all three typpes, and then discuss if they are unethical or not. All three can be unethical within some frameworks; one (either voluntary or non-voluntary) can be ethical under others; and under almost all frameworks one (involuntary) is unethical. But that doesn't stop them being regarded as three types of euthanasia, and as such all three are commonly raised in ethics discussions.[1] - Bilby (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this article isn't only about formal ethics. This article also is about medicine. If it is common practice in theoretical ethics to categorise these three, that is one thing. But in medicine it doesn't work that way. It is an objective fallacy in a medical context, by simple etymological deduction. Ybllaw (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the "etymological deduction" is where the problem is coming from. In the same sense that a dinosaur is neither terrible nor a lizard, the definition we use of euthanasia is - as explained in the lead - "the act of killing someone to prevent further suffering". The etymology is not the definition. The definition we use is about intent, and makes no comment about goodness or, more importantly, consent. Which is why we discuss consent in relation to the ethics of euthanasia, as that is part of the ethical discussion as is the method (active vs passive). I understand that you feel that involuntary euthanasia is unethical, but that is why it is discussed, and in doing so we follow the normal approach in bioethics. - Bilby (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated feedback received from this topic into a new topic #Clearer distinction between human and animal euthanasia and its implications. I think the points raised there are more precise and practical. Ybllaw (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WW2 German nazis had the philosophy of „Du bist nichts, dein Volk ist alles!“ („You are nothing; your people is everything!“). I think that was the reason that they could call the murdering of Jews, Romani people, and mentally ill people 'euthanasia', not because it was the wish of the individual people, but it was presumed to be good for the 'Übermensch' race. Erik Wannee (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary relevant to Nazism's racial views. The Nazis promoted the idea that the various elements of the German society must subordinate their interests to the so-called "common good". In effect, they promoted racial collectivism and communitarianism. The needs and interests of individuals did not matter, only the needs of the nation had actual meaning. Which made the individuals themselves seem expendable. Per the main article:
  • "Under Nazism, with its emphasis on the nation, individualism was denounced and instead importance was placed upon Germans belonging to the German Volk and "people's community" (Volksgemeinschaft).[2] Hitler declared that "every activity and every need of every individual will be regulated by the collectivity represented by the party" and that "there are no longer any free realms in which the individual belongs to himself".[3]"
  • "Heinrich Himmler justified the establishment of a repressive police state, in which the security forces could exercise power arbitrarily, by claiming that national security and order should take precedence over the needs of the individual.[4]" Dimadick (talk) 12:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nhs.uk/tests-and-treatments/euthanasia-and-assisted-suicide/
  2. ^ Mosse, George Lachmann (1966). Nazi Culture: Intellectual, Cultural and Social Life in the Third Reich. Univ of Wisconsin Press. p. 239. ISBN 978-0-299-19304-1.
  3. ^ Fest, Joachim (2013). Hitler. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. p. 418. ISBN 978-0-544-19554-7. Archived from the original on 12 July 2024. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  4. ^ Browder, George C (2004). Foundations of the Nazi Police State: The Formation of Sipo and SD. University Press of Kentucky. p. 240. ISBN 978-0-8131-9111-9. Archived from the original on 12 July 2024. Retrieved 18 November 2020.

Clearer distinction between human and animal euthanasia and its implications

[edit]

I propose making it clearer that the categories under Classification can be interpreted differently whether understood as being about human or animal euthanasia. Whether that means creating a page "Human euthanasia" like there is Animal euthanasia, or a page "Adult euthanasia" like there is Child euthanasia, I don't know.

I think the confusion that happened in #Involuntary euthanasia is not a real category of euthanasia seems to stem from the weird structure of this page and its series, where human euthanasia seems to be implied as the default, but then when defining categories mixing in all types of euthanasia for both humans and (non human) animals.

A change that could be quickly made without too much impact is adding a "See also: Coup de grâce" link under the heading Involuntary euthanesia and/or Non-voluntary euthansia, like under Voluntary euthanasia there is "See also: Right to die". This would make it easier for a reader to figure out that involuntary euthanasia is not something that applies directly to humans the way a reader might expect.

Not sure if there would also be a majority for removing "For the killing of mortally wounded animals or humans, see Coup de grâce" from the top of the page. This seems to be a poor band aid for what is really a series-structuring issue. It should be made clear which categories apply to humans and which to animals better instead. The current mention of Coup de grâce at the top of the page is confusing and inaccurate as right to die is not considered a coup de grâce. mentioning coup de grâce but not right to die skews the article towards associating euthanasia more heavily with coup de grâce, instead of remaining neutral. Ybllaw (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as mistaken, as this article is fundamentally about human euthanasia as it stands. Animal euthanasia is discussed elsewhere. Involuntary euthanasia is a commonly discussed type of euthanasia when looking at ethical discussions of euthanasia for humans, and it only applies in regard to discussions of human euthanasia: animals are unable to give consent, meaning that the only category which applies to them is non-voluntary euthanasia. Coupe de grace is a much more narrow definition, being specific to a very small subset of euthanasia cases (hunting with animals, wartime or execution with humans). I do not see a problem with a link to coupe de grace, but I think you are looking for a fix for a problem that does not exist. - Bilby (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Involuntary euthanasia doesn't make any sense. Where is the literature that refers to it in that way? There is no reference added to that section. "Against will good" is an oxymoron, plain and simple. If that is not recognized in scholarly discourse, then I'd say that discourse is fundamentally flawed about this.

this article is fundamentally about human euthanasia [...] Animal euthanasia is discussed elsewhere

This article is not only about human euthanasia. On Category:Euthanasia there is the text "The main article for this category is Euthanasia." and Animal euthanasia is also in this category. Comparing to e.g. the page Heart, which focuses on the human heart but also has a section "Other animals". Whereas this article doesn't have an "Other animals" section (perhaps with a "See also: Animal euthanasia" link).

animals are unable to give consent, meaning that the only category which applies to them is non-voluntary euthanasia

No. Non-voluntary and involuntary both are about individuals who are not able to give consent. The deciding factor which of these two it is, comes down solely to whether it is against will or not. For against will, the individual euthanised has to see the euthanasia coming, express fear non verbally, in the case of humans either verbally object or not be given the opportunity to express this verbally, both of which are murder (or death penalty) in most countries. Animals can only express fear non verbally, such that it stays ambiguous (with current state of technology).
The page Animal euthanasia doesn't use either of the words non-voluntary nor involuntary. Animals can figure out when they are about to be killed, they experience fear even in human-made situations that might not actually be dangerous but are associated with dangers in their natural environment.

Coupe de grace is a much more narrow definition, being specific to a very small subset of euthanasia cases (hunting with animals, wartime or execution with humans)

Cambridge dictionary disagrees.
"an action that ends something that has been gradually getting worse"[1]
Thus Coup de grâce does capture this ambiguity, which is currently missing.
I think that the structure should be changed to.
  • Classifications
    • Voluntary
    • Non-voluntary
  • Other animals
Ybllaw (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to animals, the distinction between non-voluntary and involuntary is signficant. Non-voluntary refers to cases where the individual cannot consent - for example, people in a coma, new born children, people with severe brain injuries, and animals. Involuntary refers to when consent is possible, but it is not sought or disregarded. This can only happen with people, as animals can never give consent, and therefore they can never be asked. It is not discussed in animal euthanasia simply because the distinction does not apply there, as only non-voluntary is possible.
In regard to coup de grace, in philosophy we stay well away from dictionary definitions, which tend to be a tad too generic. :) It is true that in modern English coup de grace is used in regard to a wide range of situations that go beyond euthanasia. But within ethics the definition is much narrower. We do a good job of discussing it in our own article here. It applies to all three types: voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary, or, as worded in our article "with or without their consent".
Anyway, as to references. We do seem to have lost the ones we used to have, but we can still find them in Involuntary euthanasia and they are readily available online:
  • Jackson, Jennifer (2006). Ethics in medicine. Polity. "It has become common to distinguish voluntary euthanasia from both non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia". [2]
  • Harris, NM. (Oct 2001). "The euthanasia debate" (PDF). J R Army Med Corps. 147 (3): 367–70. "It is the occurrence of involuntary euthanasia which forms one of the main arguments against legalisation."
  • Finnis, John (1997) "A philosophical case against euthanasia" in Keown, J "Euthanasia Examined" "... I shall call that voluntary euthanasia, and distinguish that from non-voluntary euthanasia (where the person killed is not capable of either making or refusing to make such a request) and involuntary euthanasia (where the person killed is capable of making such a request but as not done so)." [3]
  • Garrard E, Wilkinson S (2005) "Passive euthanasia" Journal of Medical Ethics. "... cutting across this active–passive distinction, is a distinction between voluntary, non-voluntary, and involuntary euthanasia, depending on whether patients autonomously request their death, are unable competently to give consent, or are competent but have their views on the matter disregarded (or overruled)." [4]
In "Death Talk" by Margaret Somerville she makes an interesting argument as to why involuntary euthanasia should be seen as a type of euthanasia, in that she argues that in the Netherlands some doctors have performed involuntary euthanasia and justified it because, as she put it, they "argue that 'involuntary' interventions undertaken with the primary intention of causing death did not constitute euthanasia" and therefore were not prohibited under the euthanasia laws. I do not know about that situation, but accordingly she makes clear that her definition does include voluntary and involuntary. Similarly Wren argues that the one we should discount is non-voluntary, as it would need to be subsumed by voluntary euthanasia (what they would have wished) or involuntary, the latter of which he regards as a great wrong.
Anway, I'll add the references. Hopefully that will help. - Bilby (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Involuntary refers to when consent is possible, but it is not sought or disregarded.
An animal can make clear without any reasonable doubt that do not want to die. Your definition of consent seems archaic. A modern definition of consent is that the absence of a no does not mean a yes. Animals can give implied consent.
Though of course a fallacious argument (dismissal based on person rather than content), I don't trust the contribution of a person (Margaret Somerville) who has advocated for opposing same sex marriage, in a discussion about ethics. In the absence of the content being present, as you said
I do not know about that situation
I'll default to dismissing it.
I don't see any sound logic in the this Wren guy's argument, but that goes beyond the point of what can be included according to Wikipedia policy. Ybllaw (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"a person (Margaret Somerville) who has advocated for opposing same sex marriage, in a discussion about ethics" Somerville is a Catholic philosopher. Extreme homophobia is a feature and not a bug in Catholic "ethics". Dimadick (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here we get back to why, so many years ago, I turned down a job offer to work as an ethicist for a Catholic organisation. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do find your approach interesting, but ultimately euthanasia is a polarising subject, and I don't think we're going to agree on definitions. But given the wealth of sources which discuss euthanasia in regard to \voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary, whether or not we agree with the categorisation I think we're stuck with it (and personally, I do think the level of consent is a key issue for euthanasia). Similarly, it is clear on the Coup de grâce article that it is relevant in regard to people "with or without their consent", so I cannot see this as worth linking to specifically under involuntary euthanasia, and I think it is better in the hatnote where it currently sits. - Bilby (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/coup-de-grace