Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Involuntary euthanasia

Involuntary euthanasia denotes the intentional hastening of an individual's death without their informed consent, distinguishing it from voluntary forms by the absence of patient authorization and often equating it to murder in legal and ethical frameworks.^[1]^[2] This practice has been rationalized historically under eugenics, cost-saving, or perceived mercy, yet empirical scrutiny reveals it as non-consensual killing driven by societal or state priorities rather than individual autonomy.^[1] The most notorious implementation occurred in Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 program, initiated in 1939, which systematically murdered approximately 70,000 to 200,000 Germans deemed disabled or mentally ill through gassing, lethal injection, and starvation in institutions like Hadamar, framing these acts as compassionate elimination of "life unworthy of life."^[3] This program, overseen by physicians and bureaucrats, served as a precursor to broader genocidal operations, highlighting causal links between eugenic ideology and mass killing under the guise of medical intervention.^[4] Post-war Nuremberg trials condemned participants, establishing precedents against such practices in medical ethics.^[3] In contemporary discourse, involuntary euthanasia remains universally prohibited, with ethical analyses emphasizing risks of abuse, such as proxy decisions overriding patient interests or slippery slopes from voluntary euthanasia legalization.^[5] Scholarly sources underscore its incompatibility with principles of autonomy and non-maleficence, cautioning against euphemistic justifications that obscure coercive elements, particularly in resource-strapped healthcare systems.^[6] While rare modern allegations surface in end-of-life care disputes, verified cases are scarce and legally prosecuted as homicide, reinforcing global consensus on consent as indispensable.^[1]

Definition and Classifications

Core Definition and Distinctions

Involuntary euthanasia constitutes the intentional administration of a lethal intervention to terminate an individual's life without their explicit consent, specifically when the person retains decision-making capacity and thus could have provided or withheld such consent.^[7] This act hinges on the absence of patient authorization, distinguishing it from scenarios where consent is either present or impossible due to incapacity.^[1] Key distinctions arise in relation to other forms of end-of-life practices. Voluntary euthanasia involves the same active intervention but occurs with the competent patient's informed consent, often following a deliberate request.^[2] Non-voluntary euthanasia, by contrast, applies to cases where the patient lacks capacity to consent—such as infants, those in persistent vegetative states, or individuals with advanced dementia—rendering explicit agreement unattainable.^[7] Involuntary euthanasia thus presupposes capacity, which is evaluated through standardized clinical assessments confirming the patient's ability to comprehend relevant information, appreciate consequences, reason logically, and express a consistent choice.^[2] Passive euthanasia differs fundamentally by involving the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, such as ventilators or nutrition, rather than affirmative lethal acts like drug administration; this form can intersect with involuntariness if performed without consent from a capacitated patient, but it is not inherently active termination.^[1] Across jurisdictions, involuntary euthanasia—active and non-consensual—is generally prosecuted as murder or homicide, reflecting its classification as an unauthorized deprivation of life irrespective of motives like perceived mercy.^[1]^[8]

Ethical and Philosophical Foundations

Arguments For and Against

Utilitarian philosophers have advanced arguments in favor of involuntary euthanasia in specific circumstances, particularly non-voluntary cases involving individuals incapable of consent, such as infants with severe disabilities or patients in persistent vegetative states, where the act is posited to maximize overall well-being by alleviating profound suffering and associated familial or societal burdens.^[9] Peter Singer, a prominent utilitarian, contends that if a being's life entails unrelievable pain without prospects for meaningful existence, ending it non-voluntarily aligns with the principle of equal consideration of interests, as the absence of personhood (defined by self-awareness and future-oriented rationality) diminishes claims to continued life compared to potential benefits for others.^[9] This perspective extends to resource allocation, where sustaining such lives diverts finite medical and economic resources from those with greater capacity for happiness, thereby yielding a net utilitarian gain in population-level utility.^[10] Opponents from deontological traditions, drawing on Kantian ethics, counter that involuntary euthanasia inherently violates the categorical imperative by treating human beings as mere means to consequential ends, such as reducing suffering or optimizing resources, rather than respecting their intrinsic dignity as rational agents whose lives possess absolute value irrespective of utility.^[11] Immanuel Kant's framework prohibits actions that undermine humanity's rational autonomy, equating euthanasia—even non-voluntary—with impermissible homicide or self-disposal that subordinates persons to empirical inclinations or societal calculations.^[12] This objection holds that consent incapacity does not negate the moral prohibition, as the right to life remains inalienable and non-derivative from contingent states like suffering or productivity.^[11] Natural law theorists, rooted in Thomistic principles, further argue against involuntary euthanasia as a direct contravention of the fundamental precept to preserve innocent human life, which Aquinas identifies as a primary dictate of reason discernible through nature's teleological order.^[13] Such acts constitute homicide, forbidden under natural law's absolute bans on intentional killing, as they disrupt the intrinsic good of life oriented toward human flourishing and divine purpose, regardless of perceived mercy or efficiency.^[13] Critics emphasize that this devaluation risks eroding societal norms protecting vulnerable populations, prioritizing absolute duties over outcome-based justifications.^[14]

First-Principles Analysis

Involuntary euthanasia entails a third-party authority—such as medical professionals, family proxies, or state institutions—unilaterally terminating an individual's life without their consent, ostensibly to alleviate perceived suffering or societal burden. From a causal standpoint, this process inherently delegates life-sustaining authority from the principal (the patient) to agents whose incentives diverge from preserving individual autonomy, introducing principal-agent problems where agents may prioritize efficiency, resource conservation, or subjective interpretations of "best interest" over the principal's unknowable preferences.^[15] Such delegation amplifies risks of moral hazard, as agents face no direct accountability for errors in valuing the patient's continued existence, leading to decisions skewed toward expediency rather than rigorous evidence of irremediable harm. Empirical assessments of human valuation underscore how proxy judgments of suffering and quality of life (QoL) deviate systematically from patients' self-reports, correlating instead with societal prejudices against dependency or disability. Proxies, including physicians, consistently underrate disabled individuals' QoL compared to self-evaluations; for instance, among those with moderate to severe disabilities, over 54% report excellent or good QoL, contradicting external assumptions of inherent misery that could justify termination.^[16] Concordance between patient and proxy subjective QoL ratings remains low, with proxies exhibiting biases that inflate perceptions of burden, often rooted in able-bodied evaluators' inability to extrapolate lived experiences accurately.^[17] These discrepancies reveal that "mercy"-based rationales rest on subjective proxies vulnerable to discrimination metrics, such as implicit biases documented in healthcare decision-making, rather than objective metrics of suffering.^[18] Causal incentives further erode claims of disinterested benevolence, as institutional pressures in resource-constrained systems favor outcomes that minimize collective costs over individual preservation. Analyses of end-of-life practices demonstrate substantial healthcare savings from hastened deaths, with voluntary assisted dying yielding average cost reductions of 87% relative to prolonged care, a dynamic that extends to involuntary contexts through analogous proxy mechanisms.^[19] In high-expenditure environments, where end-of-life care constitutes a significant budgetary share, decision-makers confront trade-offs that incentivize selecting against "unproductive" lives—those imposing sustained fiscal or emotional loads—irrespective of patient agency. This utility-maximizing logic, evident in projected net savings like $149 million CAD from expanded programs, exposes how systemic economics causally subordinates rights to efficiency, fostering selection biases absent countervailing safeguards.^[20]

Historical Context

Pre-Modern and Ancient Examples

In ancient Sparta, newborns deemed physically unfit by a council of elders were reportedly exposed on the slopes of Mount Taygetus to perish, a practice attributed to the lawgiver Lycurgus to ensure the survival of only strong offspring capable of military service. This account originates from Plutarch's Life of Lycurgus, written centuries after the events, and lacks direct archaeological corroboration such as mass infant remains at the site, leading some scholars to question its prevalence or literal enforcement beyond exceptional cases.^[21] The custom aligned with Sparta's emphasis on communal strength amid resource constraints in a militarized society, where weak individuals posed survival risks during warfare or scarcity. Philosophers like Aristotle endorsed selective exposure of deformed infants as a state policy to promote eugenic quality and prevent burdensome dependents, stating in Politics (7.16): "As to the exposure of children, let there be a law that no deformed child shall live."^[22] This recommendation reflected broader Greek norms prioritizing civic utility over individual preservation, particularly for congenital impairments that would limit contributions to the polis, though Plato's Republic (5.460c) similarly advocated discarding defective newborns without specifying widespread empirical implementation.^[23] Such practices were resource-constrained decisions rather than systematic medical euthanasia, with infanticide rates fluctuating based on economic pressures like poverty or overpopulation. In ancient Rome, the paterfamilias held patria potestas to expose infants, including those with disabilities, at sites like dung heaps or wilderness areas, where death from exposure was expected; this was legally permissible under the Twelve Tables (circa 450 BCE) and justified by family economic burdens or perceived societal weakness.^[24] Literary evidence, such as Seneca's references to deformed newborns being "drowned or exposed," indicates it occurred for congenital defects, though archaeological analyses of infant burials suggest no disproportionate targeting of the disabled compared to general exposure rates driven by poverty.^[25] Among pre-modern Inuit groups, senicide—abandoning or killing elderly members during famines or migrations—served to allocate scarce food and transport capacity to younger, productive individuals, as documented in 19th- and early 20th-century explorer accounts from regions like the Netsilik.^[26] Knud Rasmussen's ethnographic reports from the 1920s, drawing on oral traditions, describe cases where frail elders were left on ice floes, often with implicit group consensus amid starvation risks, though explicit involuntariness arose from survival imperatives rather than individual consent; such acts were infrequent outside extreme scarcity and not ritualized medical procedures.^[26] These practices underscore causal links to environmental pressures, with no evidence of routine application in stable conditions.

Early 20th-Century Eugenics and Advocacy

In the United States during the interwar period, eugenics movements intertwined with emerging advocacy for involuntary euthanasia, framing both as tools for societal improvement through the elimination of perceived genetic burdens. The 1927 Supreme Court ruling in Buck v. Bell upheld Virginia's sterilization law, authorizing the procedure for individuals classified as feeble-minded or otherwise unfit, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. justifying it by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."^[27] This decision facilitated eugenic sterilizations in over 30 states, resulting in approximately 60,000 to 70,000 procedures by the mid-20th century, primarily targeting the poor, disabled, and minorities deemed hereditarily inferior.^[28] Such policies reflected a causal logic rooted in fears of dysgenic reproduction, where post-World War I demographic shifts—exacerbated by the loss of "fit" soldiers—heightened concerns over unchecked proliferation of the "unfit," echoing Malthusian anxieties about resource strain from inferior populations.^[29] The Euthanasia Society of America, established in January 1938, advanced these ideas by promoting "mercy killing" for the incurably ill and defective, with several founders, including figures like Charles F. Potter, harboring explicit eugenicist sympathies that viewed euthanasia as a logical extension of sterilization to prevent suffering and economic drain.^[30] While no federal or widespread involuntary euthanasia programs materialized, the society's platform aligned with progressive eugenic rationales, positing that state-sanctioned elimination of low-value lives could optimize population quality amid interwar economic pressures and hereditarian pseudoscience.^[31] Parallel developments in Europe amplified these advocacy efforts, particularly in Germany, where the 1920 pamphlet Permitting the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life by jurist Karl Binding and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche explicitly endorsed involuntary euthanasia for incurables and mental defectives, arguing it as a humane release from burdensome existence and a fiscal relief for families and the state.^[32] Binding and Hoche invoked post-World War I carnage—thousands of young lives lost on battlefields—to justify reallocating resources from "ballast existences" to productive society, a framing that resonated with eugenic societies' Malthus-inspired calls for negative selection against the weak. In Britain, the Eugenics Society (formerly the Eugenics Education Society, founded 1907) similarly prioritized curbing "defectives" through institutionalization and sterilization advocacy, with fringe discussions extending to mercy killing for severe hereditary cases as a merciful complement to population control amid interwar welfare state debates. These movements, often led by intellectuals and progressives, prioritized empirical claims of genetic determinism and economic calculus over individual rights, setting ideological precedents without immediate mass application.

Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 Program

Aktion T4, initiated in October 1939 following Adolf Hitler's secret authorization backdated to September 1, 1939, represented the centralized phase of Nazi Germany's state-sponsored killing program targeting institutionalized individuals deemed physically or mentally disabled.^[3] The program was directed by Philipp Bouhler, chief of the Chancellery of the Führer, and Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician, who oversaw the recruitment of medical personnel and the establishment of six killing centers, including Hartheim, Hadamar, and Sonnenstein.^[3] By August 1941, when the program was officially suspended, approximately 70,000 adults and 5,000 children had been murdered, primarily through gassing with carbon monoxide in disguised shower rooms at these facilities, supplemented by lethal injections and starvation in some cases.^[3]^[33] Selection for killing relied on a standardized process where asylum directors completed detailed questionnaires about patients' conditions, productivity, and family history, evaluated by panels of three to four T4 "experts"—typically psychiatrists—who approved death for those classified as having "lives unworthy of life" based on criteria like inability to perform labor or severe disability.^[3] Victims were transported under deception, with families receiving notices of "special treatment" or relocation for therapy, and false death certificates citing fabricated causes like pneumonia to conceal the program's true nature.^[3] At centers such as Hartheim, arrivals underwent pseudo-medical examinations before being led to gas chambers, where killings occurred in groups of 15 to 30, followed by cremation and dispersal of ashes to maintain secrecy.^[34] The program's public operations ceased on August 24, 1941, following widespread protests, notably from Catholic clergy including Bishop Clemens von Galen, who publicly denounced the killings in sermons that highlighted the moral outrage and logistical visibility of mass cremations.^[35]^[3] However, decentralized killings persisted in institutions via medication overdoses and neglect, and under Aktion 14f13, T4 personnel extended operations to concentration camps, murdering at least 20,000 prisoners unfit for work through similar methods until 1945.^[3] This continuation, along with the technical expertise in gassing developed during T4, directly informed subsequent mass extermination techniques employed in death camps.^[36]^[3]

Legal Framework

Global Legal Status

Involuntary euthanasia, defined as the intentional termination of life without the explicit consent of the individual, is universally prohibited under national laws worldwide and classified as homicide or murder. No sovereign jurisdiction explicitly authorizes or decriminalizes such acts, with penalties typically including life imprisonment or, in countries retaining capital punishment such as China, India, and parts of the United States, the death penalty.^[37]^[38] This consensus reflects the foundational legal principle that non-consensual killing violates the inherent right to life, absent exceptions like self-defense or lawful execution. In contrast, voluntary active euthanasia—where a physician administers a lethal agent at the patient's informed request—or physician-assisted suicide is legally permitted under stringent safeguards in a limited number of jurisdictions, estimated at around 10 to 15 as of 2025, covering approximately 300 million people globally. These include the Netherlands under the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act enacted on April 1, 2002; Belgium via its 2002 law; Canada through the federal Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) framework legalized in June 2016 and expanded in 2021 to include non-terminal conditions; Colombia since a 1997 constitutional court ruling; Luxembourg from 2009; Spain from March 2021; Portugal from 2023 (though implementation delayed); New Zealand following a 2020 referendum; and all six Australian states between 2017 and 2023.^[37]^[39]^[40] Such frameworks mandate repeated expressions of consent, medical assessments for unbearable suffering and terminal prognosis (with variations), independent reviews, and reporting to oversight bodies to explicitly exclude involuntary applications.^[41] International human rights instruments reinforce this prohibition, with Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by 173 states, affirming that "every human being has the inherent right to life" and prohibiting arbitrary deprivations thereof. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), adopted in 2006 and ratified by 185 parties, upholds the right to life under Article 10 and stipulates in General Comment No. 1 that states must ensure effective safeguards against threats to life, including from medical interventions. UN experts have explicitly stated that disability or mental health conditions do not justify medically assisted dying, underscoring the impermissibility of non-voluntary euthanasia even in permissive regimes.^[42]

Enforcement and Exceptions in Practice

In the United States during the mid-20th century, prosecutions for "mercy killings" were infrequent and often resulted in lenient outcomes, particularly when committed by family members or framed as acts of compassion toward terminally ill relatives. For instance, in the dozen years leading up to 1950, courts frequently issued acquittals or suspended sentences in such cases, reflecting prosecutorial discretion influenced by societal sympathy for alleviating perceived suffering.^[43] The 1950 trial of Dr. Herman Sander, the first physician prosecuted for a mercy killing after administering a lethal injection to a patient with terminal cancer, ended in acquittal, underscoring how juries weighed intent against legal prohibitions on homicide.^[44] In jurisdictions with legalized voluntary euthanasia, such as the Netherlands, enforcement reveals exceptions involving non-voluntary cases, where life-ending acts occur without explicit patient consent. Annual surveys indicate that non-voluntary euthanasia, defined as termination without a contemporaneous request, constituted approximately 0.2% of all deaths in 2010, down from 0.8% in 1990, though underreporting persists due to incomplete physician disclosures.^[45] The 2005 Groningen Protocol established criteria for active euthanasia of severely ill newborns incapable of consenting, allowing physicians to end life in cases of hopeless suffering with parental agreement and independent review, resulting in 22 reported instances over seven years without prosecution.^[46]^[47]^[48] Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, intended as passive measures to withhold resuscitation, have occasionally blurred into involuntary passive euthanasia when applied without patient or surrogate consent, particularly in cases of cognitive impairment. Documented instances include physicians imposing DNR status unilaterally on patients, effectively hastening death by forgoing interventions, which legal scholars classify as involuntary termination akin to withholding care from brain-stem-damaged individuals.^[49]^[50] Prosecutorial leniency in these scenarios often stems from cultural norms viewing such acts as compassionate, prioritizing perceived mercy over strict adherence to consent requirements and enabling covert exceptions in practice.^[51]

Contemporary Debates and Risks

Slippery Slope Evidence from Legalized Euthanasia Jurisdictions

In the Netherlands, euthanasia was legalized in 2002 under strict conditions requiring unbearable suffering and explicit voluntary request from competent patients.^[52] However, longitudinal surveys of physicians have consistently reported instances of euthanasia performed without explicit patient request, indicating non-voluntary practices persisting post-legalization. For example, a 2021 physician survey documented hundreds of such cases amid 9,038 total reported euthanasia deaths, with rates of ending life without request remaining stable at approximately 0.2-0.4% of all deaths over two decades, despite safeguards.^[53] ^[54] Policy expansions have further broadened eligibility, including psychiatric disorders since 2002 and advance directives for dementia patients incapable of consent by 2014, correlating with a rise in euthanasia frequency from 1.7% of deaths in 2002 to over 5% by 2023.^[52] ^[55] Belgium's 2002 euthanasia law similarly started with requirements for voluntary requests from patients with unbearable physical or mental suffering but has seen expansions to psychiatric conditions and dementia, with the latter prohibited without prior explicit directives yet comprising increasing cases.^[56] Euthanasia cases for psychiatric disorders or dementia rose from 0.5% of total euthanasia in 2002-2007 to 3% by 2013, with a reported 78% increase in such cases by 2023, though remaining below 1-3% overall.^[56] ^[57] These shifts reflect normalization, as empirical analyses of Belgian data show steady growth in non-terminal applications without corresponding tightening of oversight.^[58] Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) regime, legalized in 2016 initially for those with reasonably foreseeable death, expanded in 2021 to include non-terminal conditions causing intolerable suffering, leading to a surge from about 1,000 cases in 2016 to over 13,000 by 2022.^[59] Critics, including disability advocates, have documented instances of apparent coercion driven by socioeconomic factors such as poverty, housing shortages, and inadequate disability supports, with reports of veterans and impoverished individuals citing these as precipitating MAiD requests.^[60] ^[61] Vulnerability assessments in official data highlight that 25-30% of cases involve social suffering alongside medical conditions, raising causal concerns about policy design incentivizing death over care alternatives.^[62] Cross-jurisdictional longitudinal studies provide causal evidence of policy drift, with legalization of voluntary euthanasia correlating to increased non-voluntary or coerced applications over time. A 2018 analysis of Dutch, Belgian, and other data found that initial safeguards erode, leading to expansions where 20-30% of eventual cases involve borderline consent or incompetence, debunking claims of static boundaries.^[63] ^[64] In these jurisdictions, circumvention of consent protocols occurs with minimal prosecution, as seen in Dutch review committee reports, suggesting institutional normalization facilitates involuntary extensions.^[7] Such patterns underscore how empirical safeguards fail against cultural and systemic pressures favoring broadened access.^[65]

Alleged Modern Instances and Vulnerabilities

In the United Kingdom, the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) for the dying patient, implemented widely in the National Health Service during the 2000s and 2010s, drew allegations of facilitating involuntary euthanasia through the systematic withdrawal of fluids, nutrition, and over-prescription of sedatives without sufficient patient or family consent. An independent review commissioned by the government in 2013 documented widespread family suspicions that deaths were hastened prematurely via these interventions, with the pathway applied in up to one-third of hospital deaths by some estimates, often incentivized by financial targets for hospitals. The LCP was phased out by 2014 amid these concerns, as critics argued it blurred lines between palliative care and active hastening of death, lacking robust safeguards for consent in vulnerable patients.^[66]^[67] In the United States, audits of Medicare-funded hospices have highlighted vulnerabilities to over-sedation and inadequate oversight, potentially enabling passive involuntary euthanasia in non-terminal patients. A 2019 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report identified weaknesses in Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) monitoring, including inconsistent surveys that failed to detect quality lapses in end-of-life care, such as excessive use of sedatives in profit-driven hospices enrolling patients prematurely. Subsequent GAO analyses through 2024 confirmed persistent gaps in enforcement, with some hospices facing sanctions for improper billing tied to aggressive symptom management that shortened lifespans without clear medical necessity.^[68]^[69] Post-COVID-19 nursing home practices from 2020 to 2022 exposed risks of implicit involuntary euthanasia via expanded do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and ventilator denials, particularly for elderly residents with comorbidities. Reports indicated hasty DNACPR decisions in overwhelmed facilities, where discussions prioritized resource allocation over individual preferences, contributing to excess mortality rates that peaked at over 5,000 deaths per 100,000 nursing home residents monthly in late 2020. Disability rights advocates have cited these episodes as evidence of systemic pressure on cognitively impaired patients, where default DNR policies effectively hastened deaths without explicit consent.^[70]^[71] Elderly and dementia patients face heightened vulnerabilities to implicit coercion toward end-of-life interventions resembling passive euthanasia, often driven by family concerns over caregiving burdens. Studies show that perceptions of financial and emotional strain on relatives correlate with support for hastened death options, with older adults frequently citing fears of becoming a "burden" as influencing decisions to forgo treatment. Disability rights organizations, including Not Dead Yet, argue that such dynamics disproportionately affect low-income or isolated individuals, reporting higher incidences of withheld nutrition or hydration in dementia cases without verifiable patient intent, framing these as de facto involuntary measures.^[72]^[73]

Demographic and Economic Drivers

Global population aging exerts significant pressure on healthcare and pension systems, with the number of individuals aged 60 and older projected to reach 2.1 billion by 2050, more than doubling from current levels.^[74] In Western countries, this demographic shift manifests in rising old-age dependency ratios, defined as the number of people aged 65 and over per 100 working-age individuals (15-64 years). For the European Union, this ratio is forecasted to climb to 56.7% by 2050, implying fewer than two working-age persons for each elderly individual, compared to around 36% in 2022.^[75] Similarly, in the United States, the ratio is expected to reach 47.5% by mid-century.^[76] These imbalances reduce the workforce available to fund retiree support, creating fiscal incentives to minimize long-term elderly care expenditures, including through the normalization of euthanasia as a means to curtail costs associated with prolonged end-of-life care. Healthcare spending intensifies these pressures, particularly at the end of life. In the United States, approximately 25% of total Medicare expenditures for beneficiaries aged 65 and older occurs in their final year of life.^[77] This concentration reflects intensive interventions such as hospitalizations and palliative services, which strain public budgets amid shrinking contributor bases. In jurisdictions with legalized euthanasia, economic analyses have quantified potential savings; for instance, modeling of voluntary assisted dying laws, drawing from Dutch practices, estimates net healthcare cost reductions averaging 87% relative to conventional end-of-life care, though actual Dutch cases often involve brief pre-death periods that limit savings to modest amounts.^[20] ^[78] Such projections underscore how fiscal constraints may promote euthanasia advocacy not solely on autonomy grounds but as a pragmatic response to GDP-encroaching healthcare demands. Empirical patterns in legalized regimes reveal socioeconomic vulnerabilities that undermine voluntariness claims. In Canada, where medical assistance in dying (MAiD) expanded to non-terminal cases in 2021, reports document instances where financial hardship or poverty contributed to requests, including individuals citing inadequate disability supports or housing costs as factors alongside health issues.^[79] ^[80] Coroner's investigations in Ontario have similarly highlighted marginalized circumstances, such as isolation and economic precarity, in MAiD assessments.^[81] These cases, while not constituting outright involuntariness, illustrate how resource scarcity can coerce perceived choices, aligning with broader incentives to expand euthanasia amid demographic overload and budget limits, rather than isolated patient preferences.^[82]

Societal Impacts and Criticisms

Effects on Vulnerable Groups

In historical instances of involuntary euthanasia, such as Nazi Germany's Aktion T4 program, disabled individuals were systematically targeted, resulting in the deaths of approximately 70,000 people with physical and mental disabilities between 1939 and 1941, demonstrating a direct disproportionate harm to this vulnerable group.^[83] Modern legalized euthanasia regimes raise similar concerns for the disabled, with expanding criteria for non-terminal conditions potentially echoing eugenic devaluation by prioritizing assessments of "unbearable suffering" that disadvantage those with chronic impairments.^[84] In Canada, where medical assistance in dying (MAiD) has been available since 2016, poverty emerges as a factor in non-terminal cases, particularly among the poor and disabled, with reports indicating that inadequate social supports lead individuals to view euthanasia as an alternative to insufficient care.^[85]^[86] This dynamic suggests a causal link where devaluation of disabled lives correlates with reduced public investment in supportive services, as MAiD approvals have risen to over 13,000 in 2022, including cases citing socioeconomic hardship rather than solely medical suffering.^[87] Elderly individuals, often isolated or economically strained, face heightened vulnerability, with euthanasia rates in jurisdictions like the Netherlands reaching 5.4% of all deaths in 2023, predominantly among older adults, where subtle pressures from family or resource constraints may blur lines toward involuntariness. While some studies report that families of euthanized patients experience fewer grief symptoms compared to those facing natural deaths, qualitative accounts reveal conflicting emotions and instances of post-decision distress among survivors, underscoring uneven psychological impacts.^[88]^[89] Minorities and low-income groups exhibit risks amplified by systemic barriers, as evidenced by concerns in Oregon and the Netherlands that safeguards fail to prevent disproportionate coercion among ethnic minorities and the economically disadvantaged, despite overall lower utilization rates in some low-SES cohorts.^[83]^[90] These patterns indicate that involuntary euthanasia risks foster a societal cascade devaluing vulnerable lives, potentially diverting resources from care enhancements to procedural approvals.^[7]

Broader Causal Consequences

The toleration of involuntary euthanasia undermines public confidence in medical institutions by associating healthcare with state-sanctioned killing, as demonstrated by the post-World War II formulation of the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Geneva, which explicitly rejected the ethical frameworks enabling Nazi euthanasia programs.^[91] This legacy fostered long-term skepticism toward medical authority in Germany, where professional reforms and international oversight were necessitated to rebuild trust eroded by physicians' complicity in eugenic killings.^[92] Contemporary extensions of euthanasia debates, such as integrating medical aid in dying with organ procurement, similarly threaten to diminish reliance on healthcare systems by blurring lines between care and utilitarian disposal.^[93] Normalization of euthanasia practices falsifies claims of impermeable safeguards, precipitating incremental policy expansions that alter societal norms toward accepting death as a routine intervention. In jurisdictions like the Netherlands and Belgium, initial restrictions to voluntary cases among terminally ill patients have broadened to encompass psychiatric disorders, dementia, and minors, with annual euthanasia cases rising from hundreds in the early 2000s to thousands by the 2020s.^[7] Empirical analyses of legalized assisted suicide reveal no substitution effect for unassisted suicides; instead, total suicide rates increase, particularly among women, indicating heightened normalization of self-termination.^[94]^[95] These shifts propagate a devaluation of human life that intersects with demographic pressures, where sub-replacement fertility rates—below 1.5 children per woman in many European euthanasia-legalizing nations—exacerbate aging populations and fiscal strains, prompting advocacy for euthanasia as a mechanism to alleviate pension burdens rather than incentivizing natalist policies.^[96] Such dynamics risk reviving eugenic rationales, as evidenced by contemporary euthanasia regimes disproportionately targeting disabled individuals, echoing historical patterns under resource constraints.^[97] Strict prohibitions, grounded in observed causal chains of expansion and societal value erosion, provide the empirical bulwark against these trajectories, preserving deterrence absent in permissive frameworks.^[7]

References

[1]
Involuntary Euthanasia - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Involuntary euthanasia is defined as the act of hastening an individual's death without their consent, often judged by others as socially undesirable, ...
[2]
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: The Physician's Role - PMC
Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia performed without a person's consent. Assisted suicide is to provide the means whereby a suffering person may kill himself.
[3]
Euthanasia Program and Aktion T4 - Holocaust Encyclopedia
Oct 7, 2020 · The Nazi Euthanasia Program, codenamed Aktion "T4," was the systematic murder of institutionalized people with disabilities.
[4]
T4 Program | Definition and History - Britannica
Sep 12, 2025 · T4 Program, Nazi German effort—framed as a euthanasia program—to kill incurably ill, physically or mentally disabled, emotionally distraught ...
[5]
An Ethical Review of Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide - NIH
A slight majority of the physicians (56, 8%) believe that active euthanasia is ethically unacceptable, while 43, 2% is for another solution.Missing: modern | Show results with:modern
[6]
THE LOGICAL LINK BETWEEN VOLUNTARY AND NON ...
Feb 9, 2022 · In short, if euthanasia is a benefit because it puts an end to suffering, it remains a benefit even if the patient is unable to request it. IV.
[7]
Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: the illusion of safeguards ...
(“Involuntary euthanasia” refers to a situation in which a person possesses the capacity but has not provided consent, and “non-voluntary euthanasia,” to a ...
[8]
'Euthanasia: Right to Die with Dignity' - PMC - NIH
... voluntary euthanasia – at patient request, nonvoluntary – without patient consent, involuntary euthanasia – patient is not in a position to give consent. [1].
[9]
[PDF] Taking Life: Humans
If a human being is not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, euthanasia would be neither voluntary nor involuntary, but non-voluntary.
[10]
Utilitarianism View on Euthanasia | Liberrimus - DWRL WordPress
Oct 4, 2016 · For this argument I will primarily focus on active euthanasia. Euthanasia will increase happiness and decrease pain at the same time. In ...
[11]
Killing people: what Kant could have said about suicide and ... - NIH
Kant thinks that killing ourselves when life bodes ill is wrong. In itself, this does not mean that voluntary euthanasia is wrong, as euthanasia includes the ...
[12]
[PDF] Kant's Categorical Imperative and euthanasia - A Level Philosophy
Voluntary euthanasia is the most controversial, and so we'll focus on it. Kant argued that people who commit suicide destroy their rationality in service to ...<|separator|>
[13]
https://www.pdcnet.org/scholarpdf/show?id=ncbq_2003_0003_0002_0331_0354
[14]
Ethics - Euthanasia: Anti-euthanasia arguments - BBC
Euthanasia is against the word and will of God · Euthanasia weakens society's respect for the sanctity of life · Suffering may have value · Voluntary euthanasia is ...
[15]
Principal/agent theory and decision making in health care
Aug 6, 2025 · As in principal-agent theory ( Buchanan 1988 ), patients delegate the responsibility for providing treatment to healthcare professionals.
[16]
The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds
54.3% of the respondents with moderate to serious disabilities reported having an excellent or good quality of life confirming the existence of the disability ...
[17]
Subjective and objective quality of life assessment - PubMed
In this study concordance between individuals' responses and those of proxies was low on a subjective measure and high on an objective scale.Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[18]
Eliminating Explicit and Implicit Biases in Health Care - NIH
These biases permeate the health care system and affect patients via patient–clinician communication, clinical decision making, and institutionalized practices.
[19]
Policies and cost analyses of voluntary assisted dying (VAD) laws
This review identified a potential cost saving associated with VAD laws with an average percentage reduction in costs of 87% compared to original costs of the ...
[20]
Policies and cost analyses of voluntary assisted dying (VAD) laws
Aug 26, 2024 · In total, the net predicted healthcare cost reduction was $149.0 million (CAD), or 84.8% compared to the original cost of end-of-life care.Missing: incentives | Show results with:incentives
[21]
Ancient Greeks didn't kill 'weak' babies, new study argues | Science
Dec 10, 2021 · “Fit and strong” babies survived, but those found to be “lowborn or deformed” were left outside to die, Plutarch wrote, “on the grounds that it ...
[22]
Infanticide In The Ancient World - EARLY CHURCH HISTORY
Even the so-called refined and educated Cicero (106-43 BC) in his On the Laws 3.8 states: “Deformed infants shall be killed.” The “deformity” could be an ...
[23]
Where in the Republic Plato says that disabled people should be put ...
Jan 4, 2020 · Strictly 'infanticide' – kill a child (paidoktoneo) and 'exposure' – leave a child without nutriment, shelter or protection (ektithemi) are not ...
[24]
Exposure and Infanticide in Ancient Rome - Oxford Academic
Wilkinson, Dominic, 'Exposure and Infanticide in Ancient Rome', Death or Disability? The 'Carmentis Machine' and decision-making for critically ill children ...
[25]
Four Representative Examples of Roman Attitudes Toward Infanticide
Dec 15, 2023 · Contrary to many claims, the archaeology actually does not support there having been any preferential infanticide of girls and the disabled.
[26]
Death and Dying in the Canadian Arctic - Literary Hub
Jun 21, 2018 · About 60 years later, in the early 1920s, Knud Rasmussen, an explorer and anthropologist, reported senicide among the Netsilik Inuit of King ...
[27]
Buck v. Bell - Teaching American History
A referendum authorizing sterilization failed in Oregon in 1913. Some governors refused to sign eugenic legislation. Nebraska's governor vetoed a eugenics bill ...
[28]
The Supreme Court Ruling That Led To 70000 Forced Sterilizations
Mar 7, 2016 · Indiana adopted a eugenic sterilization law, America's first in 1907. We were writing the eugenics sterilization statutes that decided who ...
[29]
Eugenics, Malthusianism, and Trepidation - Econlib
May 9, 2012 · The notion that eugenics caused the Holocaust and WWII would have baffled most people at the time. ... While Eugenics may fall out of a Malthusian ...
[30]
[PDF] Euthanasia in America - Past, Present, and Future
Mitchell warmly endorsed eugenics and advocated euthanasia for both the ... Euthanasia Society of America, replete with Nazi implications, to the more ...
[31]
“A Rational Coalition”: Euthanasia, Eugenics, and Birth Control in ...
Apr 27, 2009 · Reform eugenicists were inclined to replace the older, rigid hereditarianism that had marked the early eugenics movement with theories that also ...
[32]
Permitting the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Living
Jurist Karl Binding (1846-1920) and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche (1865-1943) argued in favor of allowing the practice of euthanasia for certain populations. They ...Missing: pamphlet | Show results with:pamphlet
[33]
Nazi Euthanasia: Aktion T4 | Kenyon College
Brack was a Nazi SS officer, a war criminal who organized the T4 Euthanasia program and developed mass sterilization techniques. He was a chief planner of the ...
[34]
Euthanasia Centre 1940–1944 - Lern - Schloss Hartheim
The murders using carbon monoxide in the gas chamber began in May 1940. As at the other T4 murder sites, a doctor was tasked with overseeing the killing.
[35]
Hitler suspends euthanasia program | August 24, 1941 - History.com
On August 24, 1941, Adolf Hitler orders that the systematic murder of the mentally ill and handicapped be brought to ...
[36]
A Brief History of the First Nazi Gas Chambers
Dec 7, 2021 · After the war, this murder program became known as Aktion T4, due to ... murdered in the gas chamber of one of the euthanasia killing centres.
[37]
Countries Where Euthanasia is Legal 2025 - World Population Review
Active euthanasia remains illegal, but passive euthanasia was legalized in 2018 for patients who are brain-dead or in a permanent vegetative state. Ireland.
[38]
euthanasia | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Voluntary euthanasia occurs when a competent person gives informed consent to end their life. · Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when a person cannot consent (for ...
[39]
Assisted dying around the world: a status quaestionis - Mroz
In the US and elsewhere, termination of potentially life sustaining treatments is considered ethical and legal when carried out with the patient or proxy's ...
[40]
The legal status of assisted dying in different countries - Reuters
Nov 12, 2024 · Medical aid in dying, also known as physician assisted dying, is legal in 10 states: California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Maine, New Jersey, ...Missing: involuntary | Show results with:involuntary
[41]
Euthanasia – Review and update through the lens of a psychiatrist
Feb 8, 2023 · Internationally, as of March 2021, active euthanasia is legal in seven countries worldwide. Most notable are Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, ...
[42]
Disability is not a reason to sanction medically assisted dying - ohchr
Jan 25, 2021 · “Disability should never be a ground or justification to end someone's life directly or indirectly.” Such legislative provisions would ...
[43]
RELEASE NOT RARE IN 'MERCY' CASES; But Some Recent ...
Acquittals and suspended sentences in cases of "mercy killing" have been not uncommon in the last dozen years, although not all have attracted the attention ...
[44]
In 1950, Herman Sander became the first doctor ever put on trial for ...
Jan 4, 2023 · In 1950, Herman Sander became the first doctor ever put on trial for the "mercy killing" of Mrs. Abbie Borroto, of Manchester, NH.
[45]
Netherlands non-voluntary euthanasia has decreased since law ...
Jul 11, 2012 · In fact non-voluntary euthanasia has decreased significantly from 0.8% of deaths in 1990, to 0.2% of deaths in 2010. The total number of ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
[46]
Neonatal euthanasia: The Groningen Protocol - PMC - NIH
In 2002, the Groningen Protocol (GP) for neonatal euthanasia was developed with the intent to regulate the practice of actively ending the life of newborns and ...
[47]
The Groningen Protocol — Euthanasia in Severely Ill Newborns
Mar 10, 2005 · The protocol contains general guidelines and specific requirements related to the decision about euthanasia and its implementation. Five medical ...
[48]
Groningen Protocol - Care Not Killing
It says that 'Twenty-two cases of euthanasia in newborns have been reported to district attorneys' offices in the Netherlands during the past seven years' but ...
[49]
Medical Law : Euthanasia Flashcards - Quizlet
There have been instances where doctors have put Do not Resuscitate (DNR) or-ders for CPR on patients without their consent. This was evident in the case of R.
[50]
[PDF] involuntary passive euthanasia of brain- stem-damaged patients
This practice exists even though terminating treatment which hastens the death of a patient arguably constitutes culpable homi-.
[51]
Death, Legal and Illegal - 74.06 - The Atlantic
Verdicts range from murder in the first degree to acquittal. Prosecutors, judges, and juries generally approach cases of mercy killing in a way that contradicts ...
[52]
Articles Frequency of euthanasia, factors associated with end-of-life ...
Since 2002, when euthanasia was legally regulated in the Netherlands, the frequency of this end-of-life practice has increased substantially from 1·7% of all ...
[53]
Study: Dutch Doctors Euthanize Hundreds Without Patient Consent
Jul 17, 2025 · The most recent study, conducted in 2021 and released a year later than usual, recorded 9,799 assisted deaths. This total includes 9,038 cases ...
[54]
https://www.statista.com/statistics/523047/total-number-of-end-of-life-decisions-in-the-netherlands-by-medical-decision/
[55]
Death by euthanasia in the Netherlands increased 10% in 2024 ...
Mar 24, 2025 · The number of people in the Netherlands who died by euthanasia increased by 10% last year, figures have shown, as the official watchdog warned ...
[56]
Developments Under Assisted Dying Legislation: The Experience in ...
The proportion of euthanasia cases based on psychiatric disorders or dementia also increased (0.5% [n=10] of all cases in 2002–2007 to 3.0% [n=54] in 2013) (3) ...
[57]
Belgium : Increase in the number of euthanasia and extension of ...
Feb 21, 2025 · Extension of euthanasia cases · 78% increase in cases of psychiatric and cognitive disorders · Those euthanised were as follows:.
[58]
Euthanasia for people with psychiatric disorders or dementia in ...
Jun 23, 2017 · This study aims to report on the trends in prevalence and number of euthanasia cases with a psychiatric disorder or dementia diagnosis in Belgium
[59]
Bridging the Gaps - Legislative and practice problems in Canada's ...
Aug 6, 2025 · Problems with MAiD. Social suffering, structural coercion, and MAiD as default “care” ... coercing individuals into choosing death out of despair, ...
[60]
Impoverished Canadians accessing MAiD victims of 'systemic ...
May 18, 2022 · Impoverished Canadians accessing MAiD victims of 'systemic coercion,' say disability advocates. Parliamentarians were told they did not ...
[61]
The Problems With Canada's Medical Assistance in Dying Policy
“When people are living in such a situation where they're structurally placed in poverty, is medical assistance in dying really a choice, or is it coercion?Missing: terminal | Show results with:terminal
[62]
[PDF] Review of Evidence: Canada - Living and Dying Well
The rapid expansion of the assisted dying law in Canada reveals the weakness of safeguards, and shows how vulnerable people are put at risk of coercion and ...
[63]
The Empirical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Non-Voluntary ...
Aug 14, 2018 · This article examines the evidence for the empirical argument that there is a slippery slope between the legalization of voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia.
[64]
The Empirical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Non-Voluntary ...
Jan 1, 2021 · “Slippery slope” arguments claim that endorsing some premise, doing some action or adopting some policy will lead to some definite outcome that is generally ...
[65]
Assisted death and the slippery slope—finding clarity amid ...
This paper unpacks the slippery slope argument as it pertains to assisted death. The assisted-death regimes of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, ...
[66]
[PDF] Independent Review of the Liverpool Care Pathway - GOV.UK
Whether true or not, many families suspected that deaths had been hastened by the premature, or over-prescription of strong pain killing drugs or sedatives, and ...
[67]
Liverpool Care Pathway: The Road to Backdoor Euthanasia
Apr 11, 2013 · The majority of NHS hospitals in England are being given financial rewards for placing terminally-ill patients on a controversial 'pathway' to ...Missing: hastened consent
[68]
Opportunities Exist to Strengthen CMS Oversight of Hospice Providers
Nov 14, 2019 · GAO was asked to review aspects of Medicare's hospice program. This report, among other things, (1) compares quality scores and other potential ...
[69]
[PDF] GAO-24-106442, Medicare Hospice: CMS Needs to Fully Implement ...
May 8, 2024 · GAO also analyzed CMS data on hospice surveys from 2017 through. 2022 for hospices that had at least one standard survey in each of the two 3-.
[70]
[PDF] Improving discussions about resuscitation in COVID-19
This research explored the experiences of people who discussed Do Not Attempt. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) with a health care professional on behalf.
[71]
All-cause nursing home mortality rates have remained above pre ...
Nov 14, 2024 · The all-cause nursing home mortality rate has remained above pre-pandemic levels through the middle of 2023. The peak was in December 2020 at 5692 deaths per ...Missing: ventilator denials DNR
[72]
Against a Duty To Die - AMA Journal of Ethics
Social scientists have noted that the elderly often worry about being a burden on others, especially family members. In the period leading up to their deaths, ...Missing: implicit pressure studies
[73]
Disability Rights Groups Say 'No' to Assisted Suicide
I have long contended that the so-called “right to die” is a right the disabled and elderly poor will get first.Missing: involuntary passive rates dementia
[74]
Ageing and health - World Health Organization (WHO)
Oct 1, 2025 · By 2050, the world's population of people aged 60 years and older will double (2.1 billion). The number of persons aged 80 years or older is ...Missing: prospects | Show results with:prospects
[75]
[PDF] Ageing Europe - statistics on population - European Commission
Population projections suggest that the. EU-27 old-age dependency ratio will continue to climb and will reach 56.7 % by 2050, when there will be fewer than two ...
[76]
Ranked: Old-Age Dependency of the Top 10 Economies
Aug 6, 2024 · ... U.S. by 2050 with a ratio of 47.5. Graphs of the old-age dependency ... Low-risk countries include the U.S., Canada, Japan, and most of Western ...
[77]
Medicare Spending at the End of Life: A Snapshot of Beneficiaries ...
Jul 14, 2016 · Spending on Medicare beneficiaries in their last year of life accounts for about 25% of total Medicare spending on beneficiaries age 65 or ...
[78]
What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician ...
Jul 16, 1998 · The most reasonable estimate is a savings of $627 million, less than 0.07 percent of total health care expenditures. What is true on a national ...Missing: non- | Show results with:non-
[79]
Are Canadians being driven to assisted suicide by poverty or ...
May 11, 2022 · Critics argue laws are being misused to punish the poor but experts say cases represent country's failure to care for its most vulnerable citizens.
[80]
This woman is considering medical assistance in dying, due ... - CBC
Dec 16, 2022 · Poverty or a lack of support is not a basis to receive MAID, but some disability advocates have said expanding access, without providing ...
[81]
MAiD and marginalized people: Coroner's reports shed light on ...
Oct 24, 2024 · The Office of the Chief Coroner for Ontario released new reports highlighting some of the reasons some Canadians have chosen medical assistance in dying (MAiD).
[82]
Some health care workers in Canada grappling with patients ... - PBS
Oct 16, 2024 · The figures suggest poverty may be a factor in Canada's nonterminal euthanasia cases. ... “I have great discomfort with the idea of MAiD being ...
[83]
Legal physician‐assisted dying in Oregon and the Netherlands
... euthanasia will have disproportionate impact on patients in vulnerable groups. ... elderly, the poor, ethnic minorities, and other vulnerable persons. In ...
[84]
Euthanasia and assisted suicide: Who are the vulnerable?
Jun 12, 2023 · This paper aims to analyse them and reflect on who is the most vulnerable in the context of EAS. A prior exploratory review of the literature has served as a ...
[85]
Private forums show Canadian doctors struggle with euthanizing ...
Oct 16, 2024 · ... vulnerable people from being euthanized “because ... The figures suggest poverty may be a factor in Canada's nonterminal euthanasia cases.
[86]
The Canadian State Is Euthanizing Its Poor and Disabled - Jacobin
May 2, 2024 · ... poverty and provide adequate care to all but choose not to while any number of poor and disabled people are euthanized by the state is profane.Missing: elderly | Show results with:elderly<|separator|>
[87]
Canada's euthanasia laws a threat to disabled, experts say - National
Aug 11, 2022 · Canada's road to allowing euthanasia began in 2015, when its highest court declared that outlawing assisted suicide deprived people of their ...
[88]
Effects of euthanasia on the bereaved family and friends: a cross ...
The aim of this study was to examine the effects of euthanasia in terminal cancer patients on grief among bereaved family and friends.
[89]
The involvement of family in the Dutch practice of euthanasia and ...
Apr 5, 2019 · Several qualitative studies describe how family members struggle with conflicting feelings during euthanasia decision-making. While they wish ...
[90]
Association of socioeconomic status with medical assistance in dying
May 25, 2021 · Economic constraints are a common explanation of why patients with low socioeconomic status tend to experience less access to medical care.
[91]
The Effects of the Nazi Experience on Health Care Professionalism
Jul 8, 2022 · These are the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Geneva, and the Belmont Report. In firmly rejecting Nazi medical ethics, these documents ...
[92]
The Holocaust, medicine and becoming a physician: the crucial role ...
Jun 27, 2019 · While many professions swept by Nazi ideology went overboard to please the Führer, physicians and other healthcare professionals were among the ...
[93]
Debating Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Death in People with ...
Jun 9, 2022 · Strengthening the link between MAiD and organ donation could damage the trust in medical, professional and public health authorities [10].
[94]
Is assisted suicide a substitute for unassisted suicide? - ScienceDirect
The study found that legalizing assisted suicide increases total suicides, with little evidence it substitutes for unassisted suicide, despite Posner's ...Missing: voluntary | Show results with:voluntary
[95]
Assisted suicide laws increase suicide rates, especially among women
Apr 29, 2022 · Jones, D A (2022), “Euthanasia, assisted suicide, and suicide rates in Europe”, Journal of Ethics in Mental Health, open volume (Feb): 1–35.Missing: ideation studies
[96]
Demography and Euthanasia - Human Life International
Mar 13, 2023 · After decades of a rock-bottom birth rate, the proportion of elderly in Japan is rapidly growing. This is, in turn, creating a vicious cycle.
[97]
Lives Not Worth Living in Modern Euthanasia Regimes - PMC
The authors of “The Quiet Progress of the New Eugenics” (QPNE) assert that some current practices, such as euthanasia and/or assisted suicide (EAS) for ...