Euthanasia by Firing Squad
Is it the most humane way?
A tweet I discovered states the following:
Why don’t supporters of euthanasia support euthanasia by firing squad? It is held by experts to be the most humane method of execution, far more reliable and pain-free than drugs.
Is it because it would expose euthanasia for what it actually is — killing a human with inherent dignity?
If not, why else?
First, how are we defining the word “humane” here? I think a good one is “showing compassion or benevolence.” Accordingly, when we treat a person or an animal humanely, we treat them compassionately or benevolently. All these terms, I suggest, come down to well-being. For example, if our pets are suffering and we believe it’s in their best interest to die, then euthanizing them would be humane.
Second, when we say that an act is humane, it usually exists in relation to a receiver of that act. So act A is humane in that it’s good for receiver R. Euthanizing our pets is humane in that it’s good for our pets.
Note that if we accept this definition, then euthanizing our pets by blowing them up would also be considered humane. To elaborate, if we think it’s better for our pets to die than to suffer, and blowing them up would be instant and painless, then blowing them up would be good for them.
If the thought of blowing up your pet is unattractive, I suspect it’s because there’s another value at play here besides well-being, and that this other value is affecting your preferences.
My best guess is that it has to do with the nature of the act in relation to the visible bodily integrity of the receiver of the act. Generally, the closer a dead body resulting from euthanasia visually resembles a dead body resulting from a natural, peaceful death, the more preferable it is. So being blown up would be less preferable than being shot, and being shot would be less preferable than dying from a lethal drug.
I’m not sure what to call this other value. The peacefulness of a death? Whatever we decide to call it, it should be noted that it’s not about the well-being of the receiver of the act. Rather, it’s about how others perceive the act and how others perceive the resulting dead body. It likely has to do with aesthetics.
And third, the author makes an empirical claim—namely, that death by firing squad would be more humane than death by lethal injection, which essentially means that the former is better for the receiver of the act.
In response, I don’t know if this is true, but if it is, then I would agree that it’d be more humane to use a firing squad. However, as I mentioned above, there’s another value at play, one that would go against that practice. And it’s for that reason that some, if not most, would be against using a firing squad. It’s not because it would expose euthanasia as the killing of a “human with inherent dignity.”