Talk:Involuntary euthanasia

Singer & Hooker

There has been some debate about the inclusion of the piece on Singer and Hooker, so I thought it best to bring it here. The section in question is:

More recently, Brad Hooker noted that "we can distinguish between killing innocent people against their wishes but for their own good, and killing them for some other reason", although he also stated that such a distinction is not very useful and would be likely to scare people away from medical experts, and that he "cannot imagine how allowing involuntary euthanasia could generate benefits large enough to begin to offset this loss". Philosopher Peter Singer, in his book Practical Ethics, after arguing in favour of voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia also speaks of conceivable cases of justifiable involuntary euthanasia, but rejects the latter as "fortunately, more encountered in fiction than in reality."

Sources are:

• LaFollette, Hugh (2002). Ethics in practice: an anthology. Oxford: Blackwell. p. 27. ISBN 0-631-22834-9.
• Singer, Peter (1993). Practical ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 201. ISBN 0-521-43971-X.

Personally, I'm in favour of keeping the section, as it balances out the new historical section by adding some modern views, and Singer in particular is probably the best known (and most controversial) modern ethicist. However, as PepitoPerez2007 highlighted, these are also personal opinions. Any thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Action T4

As a second concern, there seems to be some debate about the inclusion of the section on Action T4, most recently worded as:

The German Action T4 program has also been highlighted as an example of involuntary euthanasia, although some commentators, such as Henry Friedlander, question this comparison, arguing that the term was only used by the Nazis to disguise murder, and that its use does not relate to the modern understanding of euthanasia as a means to end the suffering of a person who has a terminal illness.

Source:

• Friedlander, Henry (1997). The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. UNC Press. p. XXI. ISBN 0807846759.

This is more complex. PepitoPerez2007 removed it arguing that Friedlander is talking about voluntary euthanasia, but that's certainly not my reading of Friedlander. However, while I believe it is impossible to properly discuss involuntary euthanasia without reference to Action T4, I would agree that this description (which I added) isn't a full summary of the situation, but I'm not sure how to give proper weight to the different sides, given that the common view seems to be that Action T4 wasn't euthanasia in the modern sense. I think we'll need something on Action T4 eventually, but I'm not sure what. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The ODE defines murder as "unlawful, premeditated killing". So T4 was legal and therefore not strictly murder, however despicable and wrongly motivated it may have been. The actions of the euthanasia clinics did become murder later, though, when they continued killing after Hitler rescinded his original order. It should be covered, if only because it is an example of legal involuntary euthanasia and probably the largest scale example as well. Like Bilby, I'm not sure how to tackle this. Perhaps a one-paragraph precis of the main article would be a start? --Bermicourt (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hitler rescinded his order -- I had not heard this. A few decades later the American Phycology Association was debating the killing of the insane, etc in the USA. It never went anywhere - but as they say - it's the thought that counts". 2601:181:8301:4510:E1B7:AC46:37F2:7DC3 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Senicide paragraph

I've moved the following here in order to discuss it:

 

Senicide

Main article: Senicide

In southern parts of Tamil Nadu state in India, the traditional practice of senicide (killing of the elderly), is called Thalaikoothal. In this, the elderly person is given an extensive oil-bath early in the morning and subsequently made to drink glasses of tender coconut water which results in renal failure, high fever, fits, and death within a day or two.

References

While the text is interesting, the cited sources don't connect "Thalaikoothal" with "involuntary euthanasia". Making conclusions like that would necessitate a reliable source, per WP:OR. Are there sources explicitly connecting the two? Gabbe (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Example situation

Let's say, that somehow the doctor is completely infallible. He could still explain the situation ASK the soldier whether he wanted to end the pain. People in the soldiers situation would all have different amounts of necessary pain before they would rather die. For the soldier it might be more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.217.182 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is not the venue for discussing the subject matter of this article, but a place to discuss sourced improvements to the article. See WP:TALK. Gabbe (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Murder

There is not a reliable source for claiming that sometimes involuntary euthanasia is not murder. An opinion article from BBC is not a reliable source for that claim. There is not any source showing that thare is a jusrisdiction where involuntary euthanasia is not considered murder. An editor has inserted an alleged example brougth from Nazi Euthanasia Program, which is WP:OR and also false. The "Hitler's decree" was not a law nor even a decree, but a sort of permission. The Nazi program euthanasia indeed was a secret one and from a legal point of view euthanasia was illegal also under the German laws then. The files of the Nuremberg Military Trials clearly stated that precisely euthanasia was a war crime and a crime against humanity but also illegal under German laws, and it should be considered, judged and condemne as murder, as it was. Other editor has mentioned the Groningen Protocol, but that case is mentioned and considered to be under the so called non-voluntary euthanasia which was claimed to be a different sort of euthanasia than involuntary *ther is anothe wikipedia rticle dealing with non-voluntary euthanasia), so it is not a case for this article. At any rate also in The Netherlands involuntary euthanasia is still considered murder by law. If there is not provided a reliable source showing under what jurisdiction involuntary euthanasia is not murder then that claim should be removed. At any rate I will remove the WP:OR about the Nazi Euthanasia Program. Let me quote the Nuremberg Trials files

E. Legality The evidence outlined above makes it clear that the Euthanasia Program can only be described as mass murder. This Tribunal is not called upon to define with juridical nicety what a state may lawfully legislate with respect to euthanasia. The prosecution asks only that this Tribunal find, as other tribunals have already held, that there was no valid law in the Third Reich permitting euthanasia, and that the execution of persons under the guise of euthanasia, with the conniv- ance and assistance of certain defendants in this dock, constituted the crime of murder-a war crime and a crime against humanity. Source: "TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NUERNBERG MILITARY TRIBUNALS UNDER CONTROL COUNCIL LAW No. 10" (PDF). Library of Congress. p. 804. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

-- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia on young children is not per definition murder under the Groningen Protocol. I agree with you that the source is dodgy and should be replaced. I also agree with you that the nazi-addition was draconian and out-of-place. The Banner _talk 02:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you also know that Groningen Protocol has NOT abolished the Dutch criminal law, and killing newborns under the motto of euthanasia is still considered prima facie murder under the law although some doctors could appeal to Groningen Protocol to avoid prosecution. But, the case here is> Groningen Protocol is already discussed in the article of Non-Voluntary Euthanasia and it is considered an example of that "sort" of euthanasia. If I do find a matter of euphemism this sort of differences, nevertheless actually in wikipedia there is another article about WITHOUT CONSENT or non-voluntary euthanasia and this adticle is about euthanasia AGAINST the will of the patient, so Groningen Protocol is not an example here. Euthanasia against the will of the patient is considered to be murder under every jurisdiction; or could you provide a source showing under what jurisdiction involuntgary euthanasia (against the will of the patient) is not murder?. Of course it has nothing to do with my own "opinion" due I do doubt on alleged "voluntarity" around euthanasia and I do consider that any euthanasia is murder and murder remains murder even and worst when perpetrated by doctors. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The BBC source doesn't say or imply that there are jurisdictions in which involuntary euthanasia is not illegal, it argues that there might be situations in which it is not immoral. It uses the term "murder" in the ethical, not judicial, sense. Gabbe (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Then if it is clearly missleading to include that sentence, at any rate it is also a POV opinion, that should not be included in the lede as part of the definition nor presented as an uncontested fact. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And let notice that BBC source use as an example of justified involuntary euthanasia a case against of "aliens monsters" (!). It should be taken that source out and that sentence. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite proposal

Contested sentence (due to sourcing): It is typically, but not always, murder.

Suggested new sentence: Legally it is alway considered murder, but not every known case leads to prosecution. Due to specific circumstances in certain cases, the involved authorities can chose not to prosecute.

More sources would be nice, off course. The Banner _talk 13:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well of course any involved authority may choose not to prosecute but surely it would be an illegal act from those authorities. I am also aware that according to the official statistics doctors in The Netherlands and Belgium perform non-voluntary euthanasia against the law or do not report the case, but they are not prosecuted while they should be prosecuted by law, but as you know not always justice works not even under the specific circumstances of The Netherlands and Belgium, so certainly that case (illegaly not prosecuted cases of non- voluntary euthanasia in The Netherlandsand Belgium) also fits into your sentence: "...Due to specific circumstances in certain cases, the involved authorities can chose not to prosecute...". But that very general sentence says nothing about those circumstances and at any rate it is not informing nothing but perhaps leading the reader to think that involuntary euthanasia would be jusitifable sometimes. At any rate the sources also do not clarify the legal issue, nor even in the particular cases they refer to. The sources do not state that involuntary euthanasia, it means against the will of the patient, is legal nor that sometimes authorities may choose not to prosecute. I think the article about thalaikoothal is being used in a sort of WP:SYNTH due it may be good for showing the case of a particular community practice of ritualizing the killing of elder people, by a community claiming they have no other choice to face poverty as the article states, and also to source that some people in this particular case have the opinion that topic should be considered beyond than a legal perspective (hopefully to abolish those extreme economic conditios that put pople into that sort of "options"), but the source can not be used as a source for generalizing it into that claim saying that "sometimes authorities would choose not to prosecute", which is a claim that is not even stated in the article in that particular case. That claim missrepresents and synthesis the source. Let see the other source, the book by Peter Singer, who is a well known promotor of euthanasia, thus it is not solely a POV source but its referenced part is dealing on non-voluntary euthanasia, it means when there is not available consent of the patient, but it is not dealing on euthanasia against the will of the patient', therefore so far it may be included in the article about non-voluntary euthanasia, but not here. Nevretheless last to mention that eventhough I find suspicious and dangerous but also speaky Singer's claim that euthanasia is allegedely justifiable when the one to be killed "lacks capacity to understand a choice", so it would be -according to Singer- justified that others take the decision on eliminating him/her, nevertheless, at any rate Singer is also not claiming that it would be a fact that "authorities may choose not to prosecute" nor that "it is legal", due he is not stating those legal facts nor any fact but Singer is clearly giving his opinions on the topic, exactly as those people from that community claiming that killing their elder people is allegdelly justified due their extreme poverty and its costum, which is also a matter of their opinion not a matter of fact, and it is not legally binding, despite of also NAZIs attempted to justify before the Nuremberg courts their massive killing euthanasia programme also on economic reasons, burden, compassion, etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And let notice that BBC source use as an example of justified involuntary euthanasia a case against of "aliens monsters" (!). It should be taken that source out and that sentence too. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed I did not specify the circumstances. There is too much variation between the cases of justifyable involuntary euthanasia to even attempt to make a list. See the example in the BBC-source. Or see the movie The Last of the Mohicans (1992 film), after about 93 minutes when Hawkeye shoots and kills Duncan Heyward, who is sentenced to death by burning. The Banner _talk 15:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing the statement from the article while it is under discussion here. Gabbe (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical and fictional scenarios like the case of monsters aliens torturing people (!), cited by BBC, or the mentioned movie are not reliable sources to reference a claim about the legal status nor about the alleged justification of involuntary euthanasia, much less to present that opinion as a fact. At any rate claiming involuntary euthanasia is justifiable is a matter of opinion, certainly it is considered justified by people like the BBC columnist, Singer, those Tamils, and also the NAZIs, but its alleged justification should not be presented as a fact but as a matter of those particular opinions. Those opinions are not to be used as a source for a general claim about the legal status of euthanasia ("...authorities may not prosecute..."), which is not even claimed by them and remains unsourced. That phrase simply pushes an opinion favorable to justify involutary euthanasia under so called certain circumstances, by presenting it as a matter of fact in the lede. That is wp:POV, wp:synth, WP:OR, and WP:promotion. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Activist again? The Banner _talk 18:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

If I remember well, that content claiming involuntary euthanasia sometimes is not murder, taken from a BBC article which base that claim on some hypothetical examples including a case of an hytpothetical alien monster inflicting torture (Predator? E.T.?), that claim was included by our very activistic friend Jabssworth-Rattel-...-9-sockpuppet. Perhaps you must direct your question to him. But would not be better if you provide a reliable source for that phrase or for your own proposed version?. Meanwhile I solely added a tag of reliability of the current source and another editor did eliminate it. Perhaps I won't oppose if it is restored the phrase, the source and it is explicity quoted the "alien case" from BBC. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

In a separate action, someone removed my example of perhaps the only instance of legal involuntary euthanasia. I wrote at the end of paragraph 2: "This was legal euthanasia under Hitler's Euthanasia Decree of 1 Sep 1939, but the continued euthanasia of people after Hitler rescinded his order on 24 Aug 1941 was clearly illegal and, hence, murder." Admittedly it could be referenced but I took the detail from the Action T4 article, so that shouldn't be difficult. So perhaps the sentence above needs to clarify that it is talking about today because there has been this exception in history??? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Bermicourt: I have replied to that edition here, noticing and referencing that Aktion-T4-NAZI-euthanasia-program was not legal, not even under Third Reich laws. Properly it is not an instance of legal involuntary euthanasia, although of an institutionalized one. Perhaps it should be mentioned in that way. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The source you quote is the prosecution view at the Nuremberg Trials and therefore not a decider. I don't know what international law currently says, but by (dictionary) definition, murder is unlawful. However, as I understand it, Aktion T4 was authorized, legally, by Hitler and therefore killings carried out in accordance with, and in the time frame of, that law were not strictly murder. This is only the same line of argument used to justify any form of euthanasia, i.e. once you pass a law authorizing it, it's de jure not murder any more. Morally, of course, all bets are off. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you should read also the sentence to convince yourself. And let notice the "Hitler decree" was not a law, not even an actual formal decree. And let notice the prosecutors in the Nuremberg Trials refers and quote sentence of others trials based on the same ground: euthanasia was not legal in Germany, and it shall also be considered a war crime and a crime against humanity. Take your time to read the files. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me quote some parts of the files of the Nuremberg Trial:

" ... The defense witness Hans Lammers, a German legal expert, testi- fied that the Hitler letter to Bouhler and Brandt was not a law, and that official legislation was necessary to legalize euthanasia ..." "... The Reich Minister of Justice, Guertner, on 24 July 1940, wrote a letter to Lammers informing him that, as the Fuehrer had refused to issue a law it was necessary to discontinue immediately the secret extermination of insane persons ..." " ... In connection with this question, it is again pointed out that the whole program was kept completely secret. Hitler's letter of 1Sep- , ternber 1939 (Tr. p. 1.516) marked ('Top Secret" was never published, and the Minister of Justice received a copy of it only one year after its issuance. (630-Pa, Pros. Ex. 330.)..." ¿secret law, secret legalization of euthanasia? "... Since the end of the war, German and Austrian courts have re- peatedly held that the killing of persons of any nationality under the guise of euthanasia was in violation of the German Criminal Code and punishable as murder...." "... The witnesses Schmidt and Mennecke who testified before this Tribunal had themselves been convicted by a German court for participation in the Euthanasia Program and sentenced to Efe imprisonment and death, respectively.

The Court of Assizes in Berlin, at the session on 25 March 1946, found the defendants Hilde Wernicke and Helene Wieczorek guilty of murder and sentenced them to death. ..." A german Court condemnig for euthanasia is a proof it was illegal as a couyrt can only condemn based on law.

for me is more interesting that the defendants claimed they were not criminal but good doctors using euthanasia, thus good death, mercy killing. And certeanly they also claimed that the letter form hitler was a sufficient legal basis. Neverthless the doctors were CONDEMNED, some of them hanged.

Let me quote parts of the judgment: " ... EUTHANASIA Defendant Karl Brandt is charged under counts two and three of the indictment with criminal activities in connection with the euthanasia program of the German Reich, in the course of which thousands of human beings, including nationals of German occu- pied countries, were killed between 1September 1939 and April 1945. On his own letterhead Hitler, at Berlin, 1 September 1939, signed a secret order reading as follows : "Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt, M.D., are charged with the responsibility of enlarging the authority of certain physi- cians to be designated by name in such a manner that persons who, according to human judgment, are incurable can, upon a most careful diagnosis of their condition of sickness, be ac- corded a mercy death." Bouhler was holding a high office in the NSDAP. He was not a physician. The foregoing order was not based on any previously existing German law; and the only authority for the execution of euthan- asia was the secret order issued by Hitler. ..."

That's helpful - thank you Claudio. So an example of illegal euthanasia on a gross scale? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Over/Underrepresented Viewpoints

It's a pretty difficult topic to write about I know, considering how little instances that this has actually happened in the world, and the parallels between this and voluntary euthanasia (which is much easier to write about frankly). I do believe that there is still more to be said about this topic though. I like what you said about World War 2 and T4, and also about the US, but why not talk about morality a bit more. For example, if someone is so far gone that they can't make their own decisions and it's up to you, and all you know is that their in pain, is it ok to make that decision to euthanize them without their permission? To support this and talk about this well, you could bring up different cases in history that have played with this morality, like Terri Schiavo.

Ssn9876 (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ssn9876! You raise some good points - in particular, it is probably worth raising Terri Schiavo for the Non-voluntary euthanasia article, as your example is perhaps a bit more suited there. But yes, I'd love to see this developed more, so expanding it would be good. - Bilby (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The Schiavo case is perhaps not the best option as it conflicts with your wish to move a bit away from the US & WW2. But yes, more info would be nice. The Banner talk 12:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

External link

I have replaced a dodgy external link (seems to be based on info from other websites who have their info from other websites) by two new links. As the case was about a Dutch woman, the external links are both in Dutch (but Google Translate is your friend). The Banner talk 12:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the replacement of the Dutch-language articles by an English-language article. That article lacks the concerns about this case with regards to the clarity of the rules and procedures. The Banner talk 14:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Happy for you to change back to Dutch, but although I can read and understand Dutch, 99.9% of readers of the English wikipedia cannot. See WP:NONENGEL Ratel (talk) 05:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

"Mercy-killing" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mercy-killing and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Mercy-killing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. gnu57 02:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Merge with murder

It has been suggested that this should be merged with the article on Murder.

I'm not in favor of this merge. I've got some moral arguments - namely that involuntary euthanasia still happens under some description (see liverpool care pathway contorversy) and if you call it murder it becomes something that people don't realise happens because murder is bad and who would murder people. Lumping the topic with murder effectively hides its occurrence.

A more valid argument for wikipedia is that the term is actively being used in recent literature which might be the "textual" equivalent of "this is still happening", and that the similarity of name between "nonvoluntary euthanasia" and "involuntary euthanasia" and "euthanasia" acts as a way of grouping similar and sometimes overlapping activities through their name.

Talpedia (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose merge Mainly because "Involuntary euthanasia" is in principal a moral issue with legal issues secondary. Murder, on the other hand, is mainly a legal/criminal issue with moral issues of far less importance. The Banner talk 20:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion for this merge is at Talk:Murder#Merger_proposal rather than here. It is probably best to keep comments in one place. - Bilby (talk)

Ok, I copy my response to that page. The Banner talk 10:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah missed that thanks for the heads up! Talpedia (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Killed versus murder

There seems to be a question about whether the Nazi actions should be called murder or killing. I presume the argument for killing is "murder = illegal + killing" from a legalistic perspective. Perhaps this is the correct answer. A point I would add is that if you go to Berlin all of the monuments for those killed talk about murder, so there might be an argument along the lines of the country itself retrospectively deeming the actions illegal (which the Nuremburg trials kinda did).Talpedia (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Talpedia: Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I live in Berlin and the memorials all unequivocally refer to these killings as murders. I find the "It was legal at the time" to be absolutely wrong from a legal standpoint (people were hanged after the war for their actions) and definitely at odds with present-day discourse on the subject. The so-called "Euthanasia Program" encompasses both military- and civilian-administered actions (a lot more than just Aktion T4) and each program had different personnel, legal basis, victims, jurisdictions, procedures, etc., so it's a complex topic.

Choosing a single program as an example: the legal basis for Aktion T4 was a personal letter from Hitler to his physician that was not widely distributed. This was not a normal statute or Führer decree; even the Nazi Minister of Justice wasn't shown the letter for a full year. The very fact that they tried hard to keep it secret strongly suggests they knew they were not acting within even the loose confines of Nazi-era law. It's a huge leap to go from "the Nazis involved sought to conceal the program and/or had considerable doubts about the its legality" to "these murders were legal at the time". As I mentioned in the edit summary, the Radbruch formula grapples with the limits of positive law and the ability of a state to legalize any arbitrary crime. This is a tricky legal debate because it incorporates the moral and political implications of what a legal system can or should be, but it comes to the conclusion that these programs were so unjust that they were illegal ab initio, and the German state and courts have agreed.

The German government, the courts, and current scholarship unequivocally state that these murders were murders, and plainly state that the word "Euthanasie" was nothing more than a euphemism to provide cover for the program. Poisoning people with carbon monoxide in a gas chamber feels like a pretty clear-cut murder to me, and it did to the judges at the Euthanasia trials too.

It's not easy to fit a "was murder actually legalized?" discussion into a two-sentence blurb for a lead paragraph, so my proposal is to describe what happened instead of evaluating the underlying legal decisions. I propose:

The euphemism "Euthanasie" was used in Nazi Germany to describe the mass-murder of approximately 216,000 persons they deemed "life unworthy of life". After the war, many of the perpetrators were put on trial and subsequently hanged for their actions.

I don't know if you speak German, but the dewiki article "Krankenmorde in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus" is quite good. I look forward to your response.-Ich (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I should probably review some of your sources before giving a full reply, but I'll give a quick reply now before doing a proper review of your sources - probably at the weekend. I've incidentally started working on this quite recently: Draft:Nazi health policy. In the lead of this article there there is an apology from 2013 from the german medical association saying that doctors engaged in programs as leaders and enthusiastic Nazi supporters. I'm not necessarily that wedded to "legal". The part that I care more about acknowledging that the murder was in many ways sanctioned by the entire medical system. I image there might be a wording not using the word "legal" that we can agree with. There is perhaps a distinct literature from the German legal and political literature looking at the actions from a medical and sociological angle so we might wish to try to reconcile the two. I agree that this is perhaps not best explored in the lead here, but it might be helpful for me to write something discussing the question at length in the appropriate place on wikipedia (if it has not already been written) after which the summary may be more obvious. I read a little german, so might have a go at looking through your article - I'm probably interested in doing more German reading... Talpedia 17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

On the phrasing. I note the value of being brief. I'm fine with the term murder. I'm fine with mentioning the trials. I feel it it's important ([[WP:DUE]]) to include that this was by doctors and often based on medical or pseudomedical diagnoses - but I would need to check if all the murders were by doctors and due to diagnosis. Talpedia 17:33, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I have plenty more reading to do, but I can't recall seeing any German sources use a term like "involuntary" (contemporary or post-war); in German sources discussing these murders, the Nazis generally just used "Euthanasie" or "Gnadentod" ("mercy death"). For the perpetrators, I suppose "involuntary euthanasia" would have been a bit too on-the-nose for a euphemism, and for everyone else, just "murder" suffices. The term "Euthanasie" has starkly negative associations due to its use by the Nazis, so contemporary German uses the term Sterbehilfe for euthanasia (see Geschichte der Euthanasie for a discussion of the historical use of the term; this also discusses Binding and Hoche, who you mention in your draft.). I recognize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source as such, but will point out that the articles on the German Wiki are pretty consistent in their terminology.

I took a quick look at your article and am glad you are writing it. I made a few changes. I would suggest perhaps a title change to "Medicine in Nazi Germany" which expands the scope slightly and aligns the title with other articles like Art in Nazi Germany, Religion in Nazi Germany, Animal welfare in Nazi Germany, Holidays in Nazi Germany, etc. Thanks again for your reply.-Ich (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the rename suggestion. I've moved the article to Draft:Medicine_in_Nazi_Germany. My impression is that "involuntary" is technical language out of ethics with murder versus killing etc being orthogonal. I imagine most people engaging in involuntary euthanasia don't really want to acknowledge that it's involuntary (thinking solely about beneficence and not at all about autonomy). Talpedia 08:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ich:, ugh - I haven't got round to looking at you sources though I still intend to. I am kinda aware that sort of stuff slows down decision making and is often indistinguisable from bureaucratic pettyfogging (e.g. what's the difference between "i haven't had time to read the material" and "I never intend to look at the material and am just waiting for you to give up"). Anyway, I might have look this weekend, but I wouldn't object if people moved on without me! I do intend to get my draft live quite soon. The key question for me (if someone had already looked at material on this, wanted to speed things up, or was interested) is the degree to which medical diagnosis and decision making was involved in the murders, how much doctors agreed with the program and how much autonomy they had in decision making and action. I think the answer is going to be (annoying for our editorial purposes) in the middle - e.g. people looking for advancement via compliance to norms that a lot of their colleagues agree with with a little concern about job security. To me decisions by an uncoerced medical body based on "medical" policies is "involuntary euthanasia" (and also murder)... or at least relevant enough that it should be mentioned to allow the reader to be informed and form their own conclusion. Frog-marching doctors to rubber stamp your ideological motivated killing carried out by the army rather less so. Talpedia 14:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The word murder expresses (at least some kind of) illegal or unethical killing, in my opinion. Whether any historical event was ethical or not is an opinion, and not a fact. Opinions (as long as relatively popular) could be described, but should not be stated as facts, or indirectly implied using loaded language. If used as a name of a crime it could be acceptable, but it it probably is not. 5.173.212.1 (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)