Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Does the US consider executions by the state to be euthanasia?
I'm writing a paper about euthanasia, and there is a strange sub-category of euthanasia called involuntary euthanasia, where individuals are put to death involuntarily. My argument is that if the individual does not want to be killed, then it cannot be euthanasia, because euthanasia is only euthanasia if done with the best interests of the patient in mind; thus, if the patient is unwilling, then the euthanisor is not serving the patient's best interests and is in fact committing murder. Thus, I believe the entire category of 'involuntary euthanasia' cannot exist. However, just to be sure, I want to see if anyone knows if state executions by the US perhaps are ever justified as euthanasia. Because state executions seem to be the only practice approximating anything near a 'legal' involuntary euthanasia: The prisoner is not willing, but it's legal anyway. I think the answer is no, but am I missing something?
1 Answer
- AdamoLv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
I think you are getting overly bogged down in semantics here. Executions in the US would never be justified in this fashion, as they are punitive in nature, not "mercy" killings. However, there are lots of involuntary euthanasia cases abroad, where standards are looser (e.g. China). The idea here would be that the "patient" is using up state resources and needs to be put out of their misery regardless of their wishes. Finally, I am sure there has been at least one case in the US where a doctor has decided to put a patient to death (this happens all the time unofficially - a large dose of morphine for a cancer patient, e.g.) and the patient changes his/her mind. However, the "involuntary" part would hinge on whether that person was of sound mind when they changed their mind. Legally, a doctor could determine that you were thinking clearly and rationally when you decided to be put to death, but then were delirious or otherwise mentally impaired when you changed your mind, so they went ahead with the overdose. I am sure this has happened at least once in the US, but we'd obviously never know about this . . .
Source(s): A resident of Oregon, the only jurisdiction with right-to-die other than the Netherlands!
