CACOTANASIA: CHARACTERISTICS, REAL CASES - CULTURE VOCABULARY - 2025

The cacotanasia is a medical procedure done to end the life of a person without their authorization. It is considered a form of euthanasia but with deeper ethical and moral implications than this.

This procedure falls into the category of so-called involuntary euthanasia. That is why it is often said that cacotanasia is closer to homicide. It is also called coercive or countervoluntary.

In some cases, its use has even been considered as part of social engineering techniques.

Similarly, there have been situations in which the desire to alleviate the suffering condition of the patient does not prevail, but rather some operational aspect. An example of this could be the vacating of a hospital room occupied by a long-term patient.

Historical overview of cacotanasia

The first considerations about ending life artificially occurred in ancient times. In Greek and Roman societies Socrates, Plato and Seneca advocated the use of hemlock to end life when it was not worthy and was given with suffering.

However, Hippocrates' position was radically against such procedures. Additionally, there were in ancient times some forms of involuntary euthanasia in children. This happened with a certain eugenic sense.

The word euthanasia was established by Francis Bacon and his spirit was concerned with preparing for death both internally and externally. Bacon's chosen term for euthanasia means "good death." However cacotanasia means "bad death".

Towards the 19th century, a debate began to open around the practice of euthanasia and its ethical implications. Samuel Williams marked a milestone by opening this discussion at the Birmingham Speculative Club.

Annie Besant was a secular-oriented thinker who also advocated for euthanasia. Her position was based on the fact that societies should guarantee living conditions in the event that vital deterioration occurs and that the final process of existence involves great suffering.

Cacotanasia in the 20th and 21st centuries

The 20th century passed with strong struggles over the legalization of euthanasia. Liberal groups clashed very intensely with conservative and religious sectors.

In the 1990s, the landmark case of Dr. Kevorkian, who assisted many to end their lives, set important precedents.

In a futuristic approach, euthanasia could be envisaged as a method of social engineering. This has already been used by totalitarian systems in the past. Such was the case with Nazism and is a frequent approach in Sci-Fi literature.

The classification of euthanasia includes cacotanasia. Some thinkers and jurists prefer to refer to this practice strictly in the field of homicide. However, there are nuances, as we will see below.

Characteristics of cacotanasia

Some classifications of euthanasia refer to non-voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia. There are nuances between both categories and it is right here where cacotanasia comes in.

Likewise, euthanasia can be divided into passive and active. Active involves the use of chemicals to end life, while passive involves suspending life support or treatment until death occurs.

Involuntary euthanasia involves performing the procedure on a person who has not consented even though they could. Here it could happen that the question was not asked or that the person in question does not wish to die. This modality is strictly cacotanasia.

Instead, non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when consent is not feasible to obtain. This occurs in cases in which the person has a health condition that makes communication impossible, as in young children.

Involuntary euthanasia raises greater moral dilemmas as it could involve people who do not wish to die. This has severe criminal implications.

On the other hand, when it comes to the non-voluntary way, it could happen that in effect the procedure means a real relief for the patient. Additionally, the individual may wish to have their suffering stopped even though they cannot communicate it.

In Holland the legislation even has provisions for the non-voluntary mode. It is what is known as the Groningen Protocol.

This protocol establishes that the life of young children can be actively ended when they meet certain health conditions for it, after consultation between parents, doctors and lawyers.

Countries where euthanasia is legal

There are a number of countries that have adopted the practice of euthanasia under certain conditions, but in general, cacotanasia is illegal. Even in some of the places where forms of euthanasia are allowed, there are legislative nuances.

On the European continent, Luxembourg, Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands allow it as such. In some areas of Spain, as well as in France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Denmark, Norway, Austria and Czechoslovakia, the so-called dignified death is allowed, which varies with respect to euthanasia.

In America only Colombia allows the practice of euthanasia itself. In the United States, assisted suicide is allowed.

Real cases

These practices carry serious dangers and ethical and moral implications. The fact that the practice is irreversible and people cannot return to life exacerbates the picture.

A report on the euthanasia situation in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2015 was recently leaked. What was revealed was very alarming in the sense that out of a total of 7,254 assisted suicides, there were 431 in which the patient did not express their consent.

There were cases of mental patients who were subjected to the practice, as well as substance addicts. Complementarily, there have been quite tragic involuntary euthanasias.

In the United States, for example, it was performed on a man who had metastatic cancer. The procedure was done without anyone authorizing it when the man argued that he was improving and was in good spirits.

Regarding cacotanasia, and in general around euthanasia, is highly controversial. There will always be ethical, moral and religious considerations involved.

References

1. Cohen-Almagor, R. (2002). Non-Voluntary and Involuntary Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Dutch Perspectives. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 161-179.
2. Gillon, R. (1999). Euthanasia in The Netherlands – down the slippery slope? Journal of Medical Ethics, 3-4.
3. Jochemsen, H., & Keown, J. (1999). Non-Voluntary and Involuntary Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Dutch Perspectives. Journal of Medical Ethics, 16-21.
4. Lewis, P. (2007). The Empirical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 197-210.
5. Sánchez, C., & López Romero, A. (2006). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: general concepts, legal situation in Europe, Oregon and Australia (I). PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 207-215.