Talk:Non-voluntary euthanasia

Child euthanasia is merely a subset of non-voluntary euthanasia. We now have non-voluntary euthanasia (this article), Groningen protocol (the only existing form of child euth.) as well as child euthanasia. It's too much. Child euthanasia could and should easily be folded into this article. OzOke (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That picture.
Does this article really require that disturbing photo? It adds nothing at all to this article, and does nothing but disturb and startle readers who wouldn't expect to see such content like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garmc (talk • contribs) 18:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be there. See the earlier discussions about the picture in this archive. I have restored the picture. The Banner talk 19:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Too specific. Non-voluntary euthanasia is not constrained to the current Netherland, but certainly, due it was inserted by our frined Ratel, then surely it has another evil purpose. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * AGF, please... The Banner talk 01:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No need. You well know that Ratel was expulsed more than one time due he repeatedly abused the good faith of the community, and after he was allowed to come back, he again abused the good faith of the community. He was clearly an rude activist pro euthanasia using dirty tricks to push his edits. His 9 sockpuppets and his current expulsion are enough proof to not assume any good faith around his doings. In the same way you recently suspected of an editor engaged in activism against abortion based on less evidence, then surely you are allowed also to suspect of Ratel's edits, whose doings you also know well enough. For the rest, I still think the picture misleads by suggesting that non-voluntary euthanasia is contrained to the Groningen Protocol and  euhtanasia of newborns in the Netherlands. Why not to add also a poster from NAZI euthanasia program then? it was also non-voluntary euthanasia. They used also some posters showing sick people in a way that people was likely to endorse and claim for a "gnaden Tod" ("mercy death"). It is the purpose of that picture to inform or to build a case and a favorable opinion pro euthanasia of those children?  -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I mainly referred to the phrase then surely it has another evil purpose.
 * But in my opinion, the picture has, although shocking for some people, its useful purposes. As you know, the cases involving children with Hydrocephalus in combination with the Groningen Protocol (why is that not at all mentioned in the article?) are the most well known and hotly debated cases of Non-voluntary euthanasia. I am not entirely sure, but I think the Groningen Protocol fuelled the international debat about Non-voluntary euthanasia to a large extend. As such, it is a worthy illustration of the article. The Banner talk 15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Besides that, it is not our duty to protect tender souls from shocking experiences. Life is rude and nasty. And as far as I know, Wikipedia is not censoring pictures for their possible shocking nature. The article Robert Capa even shows a dying soldier... The Banner talk 15:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not find nasty nor rude those children, but certainly that is the purpose and the premise of some euthanasia propaganda: to provoke and exploit revulsion and pity around sick people, in order to "justify" an alleged "mercy" killing, it means: to let doctors kill sick people in the name of an alleged compassion. Questionable society when revulsion and pity is the preferred feeling for itself and even worst if that leads to resignation and killing. Of course, to learn to deal with and to like of our common illness is the best remedy to avoid those killing instincts take over our minds. But let us discuss the issue around the picture. There is another article dealing with Groningen Protocol and it was also discussed before that this article should not be constrained to Groningen Protocol. Non-voluntary euthanasia goes far beyong it. It also includes killing of elderies, cases around the world beyond The Netherlands and historically includes also Aktion T4- euthanasia NAZI programm. Then, why to constrain it to Groningen Protocol? It also includes other prominent cases -even more famous than Groningen Protocol- such as Terri Shiavo case, Eluana Englaro case, and of course cases which drove to criminal punishment, etc. Then again: is the picture of that child really attempting to inform or it is attempting to build an opinion favourable to euthanasia resorting to the sorrow and disgust of a bad accustomed public prone to feel revulsion and pity for sick people? At any rate its conceptual similitude with those above mentioned NAZI posters is few astonoshing for me, but that is another case. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What the heck are you rambling about? We are talking here about a picture to illustrate an article. Nothing to do with propaganda. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 17:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You just edited your last comment while I was answering it, so let me quote you: "The fact that you prefer to let people suffer endlessly, needlessly and without hope of getting any better is your point of view. And to me, that is really cruel. You still disallow people to die when they are better off dead? For the sake of your opinions, you let them suffer? And what when it is your own mother, father or granny who suffer endlessly and without hope of getting any better? With all the love in your heart, you let them suffer? Or do you pull the plug?" - The Banner.
 * Well, yes, thanks to answer the question: you are pro euthanasia and surely your point is the picture shall not be removed cause it supports your point of view. But, at least keep my family, even hypothetically, out of your mouth and pity, you do not know nothing about our life (a lot of suffering but also a lot of fortunate struggle included), and your ignorance soley drive to comments we find absolutely irrespectful and insensitivity. Believe me or not, your last words absolutely lacks the capacity to grasp us, and your pity is nasty for us. Ok?
 * ((You have already erased that part of your comment, so let us move on)). Let focus on the picture: still it is not representative of non-voluntary euthanasia but of Groningen Protocol which has another article, it is not illustrating it adequately due it constrains to a very specific case of non-voluntary euthanasia, which for me certainly was choosen due it seems favorable pro euthanasia. -- <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB; font-size: small; text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">ClaudioSantos¿? 18:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you have republished a text I had already erased, I want a honest answer on these questions. Would you let them suffer or would you pull the plug? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered. To be honest not solely hypothetically. Let me repeat it for once: I do not want your questions which I still find disrespectful. Just simply implying that if I do not follow your way then it means that I would let suffer endlessly my people is a natiness, not to mention other details about your "questions" (inquisitions?). As I said your ignorance about our life, suffer and struggle drives solely to say indolent words, so please keep them in your mouth or let you question the appropiate people, like your doctors. Or you may ask them for example if they do not feel guilty at all for restoring and adapting once and once again your body and the body of your relatives to a noxious reality, instead of trully struggle against that noxious reality that makes everybody endlessly suffer. To be honest, we are not as worthy as them to be questioned.
 * about the picture again: still it is not representative of non-voluntary euthanasia but of Groningen Protocol which has another article, it is not illustrating it adequately due it constrains to a very specific case of non-voluntary euthanasia, which for me certainly was choosen due it seems favorable pro euthanasia. -- <span style="font-family: Berlin Sans FB; font-size: small; text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">ClaudioSantos¿? 00:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you a suggestion for another picture? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You started a rant over Nazi-propaganda and dug up my already erased text, The first part is utter nonsense, the second a provocation. When you want me to respect your opinions, you should start with respecting my opinions and try to avoid Godwin's law!
 * I know you have a different opinion than I have. Does that mean that we 100% disagree? Not at all. We agree on the point that we wish that as many people as possible have a peacefull and natural exit out of this life. Unfortunately, a lot of people have no natural exit, due to accidents, wars and violence. Nothing we can do about that.
 * It is just the group who is not allowed a peacefull natural exit that is our concern. Should we try to avoid euthanasia? If possible, yes. Should you disallow it by law? In my opinion, no. Should it be discouraged? In my opinion, yes. Should the plug have been pulled on Terry Schiavo? I don't think so. I don't have the idea she was suffering, although her situation was hopeless and beyond recovery. I have the nasty feeling that hospital bills and insurance companies were playing a role in this decision...
 * There are so many colours of grey between white and black, that it is impossible to give a blanket yes or a blanket no. What is unbearable suffering? I don't know! That can differ from person to person. There will always be a grey area in that. The only thing we, as humans, can do is to try and make that grey area as little as possible an offer the involved people clarity of the options and risks (including prosecution).
 * It is my personal opinion to value "human dignity" higher then anything in this world. Even as that means breaking the law when the laws are unsuitable. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 01:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

That mentally disturbing photo really needs to come down. Not because it has anything to do with suffering or euthanasia or any of the above, but because it is startling and unnecessary. I don't have anything against the child in the photo, but really it was the cause of many literal nightmares and sleepless nights. In the name of decency that image must come down. If nobody responds or disagrees within a week, I'll do it myself. 66.233.103.238 (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirect from Mercy killing
I was doing some reading earlier on the legal status of mercy killing—specifically, the use of mercy killing as a partial defence to murder, something which has been debated in English law since the 1970s (in 1976 by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, in 1989 by a Select Committee of the House of Lords) and which has been discussed since in academic sources. A mercy killing in the sense discussed by English law is a situation where someone kills a close family member or friend (etc.) that one is caring for out of pity for their situation—it may be something which the victim urges the killer to do (either at the time or as part of a prior agreement), or it may be something the killer takes the initiative to do.

Wikipedia's current redirect suggests that all mercy killing is an instance of non-voluntary euthanasia. There are two problems with this:


 * 1) It ignores cases where a mercy killing is genuinely asked for by the victim (which is the entire locus of the legal debate)
 * 2) It conflates a mercy killing with a formalised process of euthanasia, which has overtones of medicalisation. That is, when one thinks of "euthanasia", it is usually of the form of a doctor either administering or assisting someone to die (as one might find at the Dignitas clinic, or in the Netherlands or Oregon).

Sources I would suggest for the English legal discussion around the long-standing proposals to make mercy killing a partial defence to murder include:


 * The Fourteenth Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and the working drafts thereof

I post this here for informal discussion, but I may take this to WP:RFD to see if we can find a more suitable target for the redirect, because it currently probably isn't best to point it to this article. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary child euthanasia
Under the Groningen Protocol, for children under 12 years, the only consent required for the euthanasia of a sick child is the parent's. Suppose an 11 year old child understands what's going on, and actively objects to this and asks that their life be spared. Since the non-consent is clear, this seems obviously a de facto case of involuntary euthanasia, but de jure children can't give consent (but can they express non-consent?). Would this be considered involuntary or non-voluntary? Is there any way the child could appeal this and save themselves? Is this situation as ridiculous as it seems to me, that a parent can legally order a sick child's death against their will?

68.40.49.146 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Putting Pets Down?
Why no mention of putting pets down? And what about the moral inconsistencies people have where there's near unanimous consent that the non-voluntary euthanasia of pets is okay, but half of these people inconsistently believe that the voluntary euthanasia of humans is not. I mean... The only difference is whether or not it's possible to get consent. Which suggests there's more to it than mercy killing, BTW. Perhaps it's about control.68.42.32.128 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but isn't that covered under the Animal euthanasia article? &#9658; Bgpaulus (WORDS &amp; DEEDS)  &#9668; 23:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be all well and good if there were any significant difference between the two. If you could provide a source proving such a thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.32.128 (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The Baby Picture
The image needs to be removed. It does not contribute to the point of the article, does not add anything that could not be communicated through text, does not fit with the tone of the article, and is arguably disrespectful towards the child. I realize that prior consensus had been reached nine years ago, but much of the discussion seems out-of-date to me, and it has been long enough that I believe it warrants another discussion.

If no objections are raised, I will delete the image myself. It is not necessary to the article.

Thanks, Skylamps (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Turning of life support
What about turning life support for someone who is only kept alive by machines. Is that considered non-voluntary euthanasia? Tvx1 15:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Merge with involuntary euthanasia
The distinction between non-voluntary euthanasia and Involuntary euthanasia (which, to my knowledge, was developed or at least promoted by Peter Singer) is clearly a matter of opinion. The ability to consent is determined by politics, not biology. Eugenicists who supported forced euthanasia would have regarded it as non-voluntary euthanasia, since from their point of view "subhumans" couldn't consent or not consent. So what gets labelled "non-voluntary" or "involuntary" euthanasia depends on the viewer. Furthermore, in common parlance, the terms "non-voluntary" and "involuntary" are synonymous.

We should have one page called "Euthanasia without consent". The distinction between "non-voluntary" and "involuntary" could be explained within the page itself the same way the page currently distinguishes "passive euthanasia" and "active euthanasia". Idlem (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The distinction is well established in ethics literature - it is the difference between being unable to consent and refusing to consent, which is a significant difference between the two. I think we should just follow the literature and distinguish between voluntary, non-voluntary and involuntary, as opposed to creating a new category of "without consent". - Bilby (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why isn't this "ethics literature" sourced in the two articles? Idlem (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused by your question - the sources are at the end of the article. - Bilby (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)