What is Involuntary Euthanasia?

Article Details
  • Written By: Tara Barnett
  • Edited By: Melissa Wiley
  • Last Modified Date: 18 October 2016
  • Copyright Protected:
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article

Involuntary euthanasia is the ending of a person's life without his or her consent, typically due to the perceived lack of worth of that life. The intended semantic difference between this type of euthanasia and murder is that murder is an aggressive act intended to punish, whereas euthanasia is usually used for situations in which life is ended for philosophical or purportedly rational reasons. In many people's opinions, there is no difference between these two terms, nor is there always a legal difference. Generally, when a person refers to involuntary euthanasia it is in a philosophical or conceptual sense, because actually practicing euthanasia without a patient's consent is almost always considered murder in today's legal systems.

When euthanasia is performed without a person's consent, this is considered involuntary euthanasia. The person may violently resist euthanasia if it is being performed actively, meaning that actions are taken to actively kill the person. In most cases, this type of euthanasia is performed by withdrawing care rather than actively killing a person. This may be done without the patient's knowledge, often by a doctor, or without the patient's consent when he or she is mentally incapacitated.


Euthanasia of any type usually refers to the termination of a life due to medical factors or lack of worth. A person who is killed because he or she is severely ill, mentally impaired, or dangerous to society might be thought of as having been euthanized. Euthanasia is defined as an emotionless act on the part of the doctor or person who commits it. This is one of the major differences between euthanasia and murder.

From the perspective of Nazis during the Holocaust, for example, there are arguments to be made that the deaths of Jewish people in gas chambers could be considered involuntary euthanasia. Nazis believed the lives of Jewish people, as well as a wide variety of other people, were worthless and therefore that it was rational to cleanse society of them. Clearly, from the perspective of all other parties and future generations, these actions constituted murder. The determination of what is euthanasia and what is murder is largely dependent on what lives are considered as having worth, and this depends on both the time period and culture at hand.

Involuntary euthanasia is not always considered the same as withdrawing treatment for a person who is dying and cannot legally give consent due to a coma or other impairment. This is usually considered non-voluntary passive euthanasia, which generally means that, while consent cannot be obtained from the patient, the patient's interests are being represented because he or she is going to die very soon and will not regain consciousness at any point. Children with severe birth defects are sometimes subjected to non-voluntary euthanasia of an active type, which is usually thought of as a mercy killing. The legality of these actions depends on the country and area in which the euthanasia takes place, and public opinion of these proceedings may not always reflect the law.


You might also Like


Discuss this Article

Post 4

If weak and sick people, be they infants or the elderly, are not defended from the hands of the all-wise and all-knowing scientific community, I highly doubt they will have a chance at living. Just think of where justifications for administered death have taken Western Society in the past century. Do we really want to repeat the mistakes of the past?

Post 2


What if a person is suffering and is too mentally handicapped to know that there is a way out? I think that administering involuntary euthanasia can be a helpful remedy for this kind of situation. Babies who are sure to be born with serious disorders shouldn't have to live their whole lives in pain and shame.

Post 1

The legality of these actions may vary, but I'm pretty sure the morality of such actions is non-existent. Involuntary Euthanasia is nothing short of the murder of the weak. If a baby is unable to choose whether or not it wants to live, I think it is up to the baby's god-given right to life. If a person or a baby is physically impaired, we would be mimicking the Nazi Reich in assuming that they should be done away with. This is a survival of the fittest mentality and is known as Social Darwinism.

Post your comments

Post Anonymously


forgot password?