Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Euthanasia device
View on Wikipedia| Suicide |
|---|
| Part of a series on |
| Euthanasia |
|---|
| Types |
| Views |
| Groups |
| People |
| Books |
| Jurisdictions |
| Laws |
| Alternatives |
| Other issues |
A euthanasia device is a machine engineered to allow an individual to die quickly with minimal pain. The most common devices are those designed to help terminally ill people die by voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide without prolonged pain. They may be operated by a second party, such as a physician, or by the person wishing to die. There is an ongoing debate on the ethics of euthanasia and the use of euthanasia devices.
Notable devices
[edit]Thanatron
[edit]Invented by Jack Kevorkian, who used this device and called it a "Thanatron" or death machine after the Greek daemon, Thanatos. It worked by pushing a button to deliver the euthanizing drugs mechanically through an IV. It had three canisters mounted on a metal frame. Each bottle had a syringe that connected to a single IV line in the person's arm. One contained saline, one contained a sleep-inducing barbiturate called sodium thiopental and the last a lethal mixture of potassium chloride, which immediately stopped the heart, and pancuronium bromide, a paralytic medication to prevent spasms during the dying process.[1] Two deaths were assisted with this method.
Mercitron
[edit]Kevorkian assisted others with a device that employed a gas mask fed by a canister of carbon monoxide which was called "Mercitron" (mercy machine).[1] This became necessary because Kevorkian's medical license had been revoked after the first two deaths, and he could no longer have legal access to the substances required for the "Thanatron". It was a rudimentary device consisting of a canister of carbon monoxide attached to a face mask with a tube. A valve must be released to start the gas flowing. Depending on the person's disability, a makeshift handle may be attached to the valve to make it easier to turn. Or, with the valve in the "open" position, a clip or clothespin could be clamped on the tubing. Pulling it off allows the gas to flow. By Kevorkian's estimates, this method took 10 minutes or longer. Sometimes he encouraged people to take sedatives or muscle relaxants to keep them calm as they breathed deeply of the gas.
Deliverance Machine
[edit]The Deliverance Machine was invented by Philip Nitschke. It consisted of software entitled Deliverance, that came on a special laptop that could be connected to an IV in a person's arm. The computer program asked a series of questions to confirm the person's intent to die that being:
1." Are you aware that if you go ahead to the last screen and press the “Yes” button, you will be given a lethal dose of medications and die?"
2. "Are you certain you understand that if you proceed and press the “Yes” button on the next screen that you will die?"
3." In 15 seconds you will be given a lethal injection… press “Yes” to proceed."[2]
After answering affirmatively to all of the questions, a lethal injection of barbiturates was triggered.[3]
In an interview Nitschke said that, even if it had been legal for a doctor to give a lethal injection, he preferred that the patient be in control of the administration of the drugs. Reducing the role of a physician also allowed a patient to be alone with their family during the euthanasia process.[4]
The machine was used, legally, while the Australian Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 was in effect; the act was eventually nullified by legislation of the Australian Parliament. The machine was put on display in the British Science Museum.[4]
Exit International's euthanasia device
[edit]The Exit International euthanasia device was invented by Philip Nitschke in 2008. It uses a canister of nitrogen,[5] a plastic suicide bag, and a plastic tube with one end attached to the gas canister and the other fixed inside the bag by a tie held by adhesive tape.[6] Nitschke said, "That idea of giving people access to a means of feeling that they're back in control of this issue is actually a way of prolonging life. It may seem paradoxical, but what we find is when people feel that they're back in control, they're less likely to do desperate things."[7]
Background
[edit]The basic principle of autoeuthanasia by anoxia was first described in the book Final Exit by Derek Humphry in 1991.[8] The original methodology was devised, using helium, by the NuTech group.[9][10]
Description
[edit]Nitschke described his device as a modification of the exit bag with helium method described in The Peaceful Pill Handbook. Helium was replaced by a cylinder of compressed nitrogen and a regulator to supply the nitrogen into a plastic bag. One advantage of this method was the availability of larger amounts of nitrogen and flow rates last longer. Nitschke states that nitrogen is also more physiologically inert than helium, with less chance of adverse reaction,[a][6] and that loss of consciousness is quick with death following within minutes.[6] Unlike helium cylinders, nitrogen cylinders can be refilled in the event of leakage[b] and nitrogen gas is naturally present in all tissues and this use cannot be detected during an autopsy.[12][13]
Process
[edit]The principle behind the device is oxygen deprivation that leads to hypoxia, asphyxia and death within minutes. Deprivation of oxygen in the presence of raised levels of carbon dioxide creates a sense of suffocation (the hypercapnic alarm response), which usually leads to panic, and struggling even when unconscious, whereas anoxia in the presence of an inert gas, like nitrogen, helium or argon, does not.[6]
External contact with an inert gas is harmless. Inhalation of an oxygen-free inert gas is lethal, but released into the open air, it quickly disperses, and is harmless to others. It is neither flammable nor explosive. Humphry's book describes close contact with the gas achieved by enclosing the head in a strong, clear plastic bag, secured around the neck, with the inert gas fed into the bag by plastic tubing.[8]
Suicides using this method are documented in the forensic literature.[14] In the study Asphyxial suicide with helium and a plastic bag (Ogden et al.), the authors describe a typical case history, in which an elderly cancer sufferer used a plastic bag which was secured over her head, a helium tank, and a plastic hose attached to the tank valve and plastic bag.[15] The authors noted that a suicide bag filled with helium will cause almost immediate unconsciousness, followed within minutes by death.[15] Time to loss of consciousness in a bag filled with nitrogen is 15 seconds,[c] according to professors Copeland, Pappas and Parr, who campaigned for a more humane execution method in the US state of Oklahoma.[16]
Sarco device
[edit]
In 2017, Nitschke invented the 3D-printed suicide capsule, which he named "the Sarco".[17] The Sarco would contain a touchpad and nitrogen, and once an activation code is entered, "the person is again asked if they wish to die".[17] An affirmative answer causes nitrogen to flow into the capsule, displacing oxygen, and death follows shortly thereafter. The Sarco machine cannot be printed on small 3D printers. The Sarco offers a "euphoric death".[18] Nitschke planned to release the open source plans for the Sarco by 2019.[18]
In fiction
[edit]Suicide booth
[edit]A suicide booth is a fictional machine for committing suicide. Suicide booths appear in numerous fictional settings, one of which is the American animated series Futurama. Compulsory self-execution booths were also featured in an episode of the original Star Trek TV series entitled "A Taste of Armageddon". The concept can be found as early as 1893. When a series of suicides were vigorously discussed in United Kingdom newspapers, critic William Archer suggested that in the golden age there would be penny-in-the-slot machines by which a man could kill himself.[19][20]
Following Archer's statement in 1893, the 1895 story "The Repairer of Reputations" by Robert W. Chambers featured the Governor of New York presiding over the opening of the first "Government Lethal Chamber" in the then-future year of 1920, after the repeal of laws against suicide:
"The Government has seen fit to acknowledge the right of man to end an existence which may have become intolerable to him, through physical suffering or mental despair." [...] He paused, and turned to the white Lethal Chamber. The silence in the street was absolute. "There a painless death awaits him who can no longer bear the sorrows of this life."[21]
However, as Chambers's protagonist who relates the story is suffering from brain damage, it remains ambiguous whether or not he is an unreliable narrator.
Modern writer Martin Amis provoked a small controversy in January 2010 when he facetiously advocated "suicide booths" for the elderly, of whom he wrote:
There’ll be a population of demented very old people, like an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops...There should be a booth on every corner where you could get a Martini and a medal.[22]
Futurama
[edit]In the world of Futurama, Stop-and-Drop suicide booths resemble phone booths and cost one quarter per use. The booths have at least three modes of death: "quick and painless", "slow and horrible",[23] and "clumsy bludgeoning"[24] though, it is also implied that "electrocution, with a side order of poison" exists,[25] and that the eyes can be scooped out for an extra charge.[24] After a mode of death is selected and executed, the machine cheerfully says, "You are now dead. Thank you for using Stop-and-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008", or in Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs, "You are now dead, please take your receipt", and at this time many untaken receipts are shown.[26]
The first appearance of a suicide booth in Futurama is in "Space Pilot 3000", in which the character Bender wants to use it after learning that the girders he bent were used to construct suicide booths.[23] Fry at first mistakes the suicide booth for a phone booth, and Bender offers to share it with him. Fry requests a collect call, which the machine interprets as a "slow and horrible" death. It then turns out that "slow and horrible" can be survived by pressing oneself against the side of the booth, leading Bender to accuse the machine of being a rip-off. In Futurama: Bender's Big Score, after failing to initially chase down Fry in the year 2000, Bender wants to kill himself, but then ironically mistakes a regular phone booth for a suicide booth.[27] A suicide booth reappeared in Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs where Bender once again attempts to end his life, but is saved when dropped into the League of Robots' lair.[27] During the season 6 episode "Ghost in the Machines", Bender commits suicide in a booth named Lynn that is still angry at him over the end of their relationship six months earlier; his ghost eventually makes its way back to his body so he can continue living.[28]
According to series co-creator Matt Groening, the suicide booth concept was inspired by a 1937 Donald Duck cartoon, Modern Inventions, in which Donald Duck visits a Museum of the Future and is nearly killed by various push button gadgets.[29] The suicide booth was closely enough associated with Bender's character that in 2001 it was featured as the display stand for the Bender action figure.[30] It was also one of the many features of the series which troubled the executives at Fox when Groening and David X. Cohen first pitched the series.[31]
In other media
[edit]In the Star Trek episode "A Taste of Armageddon", people who were deemed war casualties by the government of Eminiar VII were required to enter suicide booths. Treaty arrangements require that everyone who is calculated as "dead" in the hypothetical thermonuclear war simulated using computers actually die, without actually damaging any infrastructure. In the end, the computers are destroyed, the war can no longer be calculated in this way, the treaty breaks down, and faced with a real threat, (presumably) peace begins.[citation needed] After the Heaven's Gate mass suicide event was linked by tabloids to an extreme fascination with science fiction and Star Trek in particular it was noted that multiple episodes, including "A Taste of Armageddon", actually advocated an anti-suicide standpoint as opposed to the viewpoint expressed by the Heaven's Gate group.[32]
In the seventeenth season The Simpsons episode "Million Dollar Abie", a suicide machine called a "diePod" (a pun on the iPod) is featured. The diePod allows the patient to choose visual and auditory themes that present themselves as the patient is killed. It also shows three different modes, namely, "Quick Painless Death", "Slow and Painful Death", and "Megadeath" (a pun on a band of a similarly spelled name). It was a reference to the suicide building in Soylent Green. Being a direct parody of the aforementioned scene, Abraham Simpson receives the opportunity to select his final vision and musical accompaniment: 1960s-era footage of "cops beatin' up hippies" to the tune of "Pennsylvania 6-5000" by the Glenn Miller Orchestra.[citation needed]
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ There are no recorded adverse effects other than asphyxiation due to breathing helium or nitrogen at atmospheric pressure. Both are routinely used as breathing gas diluents for underwater diving.[11]
- ^ Cylinders for helium and nitrogen can be refillable or non-refillable depending on the type available on the local market
- ^ This time starts when the person inhales, and does not count any breathhold duration which would extend the period accordingly
References
[edit]- ^ a b Lopes, Giza (2015-04-28). Dying with Dignity: A Legal Approach to Assisted Death: A Legal Approach to Assisted Death. Santa Barbara, California; Denver, Colorado: Praeger. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-4408-3097-6.
- ^ Nitschke, Philip (2014). "Exit International | The "Deliverance Machine", invented by Philip Nitschke - Exit International". www.exitinternational.net.
- ^ "Death by Computer". online.wsj.com. Archived from the original on 2017-08-28. Retrieved 2009-01-06.
- ^ a b Kathryn Jean Lopez (5 June 2001), Euthanasia Sets Sail An interview with Philip Nitschke, the other "Dr. Death.", archived from the original on 15 April 2016, retrieved 18 April 2016
- ^ Wheatley, Kim (2008-12-16). "New death device to be launched in Adelaide". www.news.com.au. Archived from the original on 2009-03-13. Retrieved 2008-12-19.
- ^ a b c d Nitschke, Philip; Stewart, Fiona (2010). The Peaceful Pill Handbook. Exit International US Ltd. ISBN 978-0-9788788-2-5. Archived from the original on 2016-04-15. Retrieved 2016-04-15.
- ^ "Nitschke's suicide machine slammed". Australian Broadcasting Corporation, www.abc.net.au. 2008-12-17. Archived from the original on 2008-12-19. Retrieved 2008-12-19.
- ^ a b Humphry, Derek (1991). Final Exit: the Practicalities of Self-Deliverance and Assisted Suicide for the Dying. New York: Delta Trade Paperback. ISBN 978-0-385-33653-6.
- ^ Martindale, Diane (2005-06-01). "A Culture of Death". Scientific American. Scientific American. Archived from the original on 2016-01-15. Retrieved 2016-04-18.
- ^ "NuTech Report". ERGO. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved 2016-04-18.
- ^ Joiner, James T, ed. (28 February 2001). NOAA Diving Manual, Diving for Science and Technology (4th ed.). Silver Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Undersea Research Program. ISBN 978-0-941332-70-5.
- ^ "Test detects suicides from natural deaths". ABC News. www.abc.net.au. 14 January 2010. Archived from the original on 10 November 2012. Retrieved 15 January 2010.
- ^ Orr, Aleisha (3 May 2013). "Euthanasia group to show West Aussies how to die 'well'". WAToday. Archived from the original on 7 May 2013. Retrieved 8 May 2013.
- ^ Howard MO, Hall MT, Edwards JD, Vaughn MG, Perron BE, Winecker RE (2011). "Suicide by asphyxiation due to helium inhalation" (PDF). The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 32 (1): 61–70. doi:10.1097/paf.0b013e3181ed7a2d. hdl:2027.42/78181. PMID 21394956. S2CID 2079630. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2012-09-02. Retrieved 2018-09-30.
- ^ a b Ogden, Russel D.; Wooten, Rae H. (September 2002). "Asphyxial Suicide with Helium and a Plastic Bag". American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. 23 (3): 234–7. doi:10.1097/00000433-200209000-00005. PMID 12198347. S2CID 11301455.
- ^ Shuler, Jack (2015-03-20). "Can Executions Be More Humane?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2016-04-06. Retrieved 2016-04-18.
- ^ a b Overington, Caroline (2017-11-25). "Philip Nitschke invents suicide capsule with 3D printer". The Australian. News Corporation. Retrieved 2017-11-25.
- ^ a b Nitschke, Philip (2018-04-05). "Here's Why I Invented A 'Death Machine' That Lets People Take Their Own Lives". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2018-04-05. Retrieved 2018-04-06.
- ^ "Glasgow Herald". August 22, 1893.
- ^ G.K. Chesterton. Orthodoxy (1908). pp. 64–65.
- ^ Chambers, Robert William (1895). "The Repairer of Reputations". The King in Yellow. F. Tennyson Neely.
- ^ Long, Camilla (2010-01-24). "Martin Amis and the sex war". The Times. London. Retrieved 2010-05-24.[dead link]
- ^ a b Moore, Rich; Vanzo, Gregg; Groening, Matt; Cohen, David X. (March 28, 1999). "Space Pilot 3000". Futurama. Season 1. Episode 1. Fox.
- ^ a b Futurama: The Beast with a Billion Backs
- ^ Futurama: Bender's Big Score
- ^ Ray Richmond (1999-03-26). "Futurama". Variety. Retrieved 2007-09-15.
- ^ a b Futurama: Bender's Big Score
- ^ Ghost in the Machines
- ^ Groening, Matt (2003). Futurama season 1 DVD commentary for the episode "Space Pilot 3000" (DVD). 20th Century Fox.
- ^ Huxter, Sean (2001-06-11). "Futurama Action Figures". Archived from the original on 2007-08-07. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
- ^ Baker, Chris (2007-11-27). "Futurama Is Back! Grab a Can of Slurm and Settle In". Wired. Retrieved 2008-07-02.
- ^ Moorhead, M.V. (1998-03-26). "Sci-Fi, So Good". Archived from the original on 2008-12-06. Retrieved 2007-11-02.
External links
[edit]Euthanasia device
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Purpose
Core Definition and Mechanisms
A euthanasia device is an engineered apparatus intended to enable an individual to self-administer a lethal process resulting in rapid unconsciousness and death with purportedly minimal pain or distress, distinct from clinician-administered euthanasia or methods lacking mechanical facilitation such as manual overdose or hanging.[9] These devices typically incorporate automated delivery systems activated by the user, such as a switch or button, to initiate the sequence without requiring ongoing intervention from another person, thereby circumventing legal frameworks that restrict direct assistance in suicide.[10] Common pharmacological mechanisms mimic elements of lethal injection protocols, delivering intravenous agents sequentially: a high-dose barbiturate like sodium thiopental or pentobarbital first induces deep sedation or coma by depressing the central nervous system, followed by potassium chloride to induce hyperkalemia and cardiac arrest through disruption of myocardial electrical activity.[11] Self-administration is achieved via user-controlled valves or pumps connected to pre-loaded syringes or reservoirs, ensuring the process proceeds autonomously once triggered.[11] Inhalational mechanisms alternatively employ gases to achieve death via hypoxia or toxicity; carbon monoxide binds hemoglobin with high affinity, preventing oxygen transport and causing cellular asphyxiation, while inert gases such as helium or nitrogen displace atmospheric oxygen in an enclosed space, leading to unconsciousness within seconds due to acute hypoxemia without the distress of hypercapnia.[9] Devices facilitating this may include canisters, tubing, or sealed chambers where the user activates gas release or inflow, resulting in death typically within minutes from respiratory and cerebral failure.[9]Intended Applications and User Profiles
Euthanasia devices, such as the Thanatron and Mercitron, were developed with the primary intended application of enabling terminally ill individuals to perform voluntary self-administered suicide, thereby granting them autonomy over the precise timing and method of death to circumvent extended suffering associated with terminal conditions.[12] This purpose emphasizes active participation by the user in initiating the lethal process, distinguishing these mechanisms from passive euthanasia approaches like the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments, which depend on gradual physiological decline and ongoing clinical oversight.[13] Empirical patterns from documented cases, however, indicate usage extending beyond strictly terminal diagnoses to encompass non-terminal chronic conditions, disabilities, and instances of severe psychological distress. In Jack Kevorkian's approximately 130 assisted suicides from 1990 to 1998, patient profiles featured a range of ages from the twenties to over ninety, with conditions including multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), chronic pain syndromes, and other progressive but non-imminently fatal disorders; notably, fewer than half met conventional terminal illness criteria of under six months prognosis, as later contrasted with regulated programs like Oregon's Death with Dignity Act.[14] Gender distribution in his acknowledged 75 early cases showed women comprising 52%, though broader analyses suggest a skew toward female users seeking relief from protracted non-cancerous ailments.[15] A 2024 instance involving the Sarco pod further illustrates this profile diversity, where a 64-year-old American woman utilized the device in Switzerland amid reported health impairments but absent a confirmed terminal illness, underscoring how such apparatuses appeal to users desiring immediate, solitary execution of death without intermediary medical administration or prolonged evaluation.[7] These cases highlight a user base motivated by perceived unbearable suffering rather than uniform terminality, often bypassing institutional safeguards inherent in passive or physician-directed euthanasia.[16]Historical Development
Precursors and Early Advocacy
In ancient Greece, philosophical discussions of euthanasia centered on voluntary death to avoid suffering, exemplified by Socrates' execution in 399 BCE, where he drank a cup of hemlock poison as ordered by the Athenian court, framing it as a rational choice in Plato's Phaedo rather than a medical procedure.[17] Such acts relied on rudimentary poisons without any mechanical apparatus for controlled administration, distinguishing them from later engineered devices.[18] Hippocratic texts explicitly rejected physician involvement in hastening death, prioritizing non-maleficence, though dramatists and some philosophers like Epicurus indirectly explored suicide as escape from incurable pain.[18] Roman practices included self-poisoning with substances like hemlock or opium for suicide among elites facing dishonor or illness, but these lacked standardized kits or delivery mechanisms, often involving ad hoc mixtures prepared by individuals or attendants. Advocacy remained philosophical or customary, with no evidence of systematic devices; poisons were selected for rapid lethality, as in Seneca's forced suicide under Nero in 65 CE, where slit wrists supplemented by poison failed to act swiftly enough. Modern precursors emerged in the 19th century, with Samuel D. Williams proposing in 1870 the use of chloroform or morphine to induce painless death for the terminally ill, marking an early call for pharmacological euthanasia without mechanical aids.[19] This influenced 20th-century debates intertwined with eugenics, where advocates like Karl Binding argued in 1920 for "destroying life unworthy of life" among the disabled, laying ideological groundwork later exploited by regimes.[20] In Nazi Germany, 1930s advocacy by psychiatrists for eliminating "unproductive" lives culminated in the 1939 Aktion T4 program, which systematically killed around 70,000 institutionalized disabled and mentally ill individuals via gas chambers and lethal injections, primarily involuntary and state-directed, highlighting potential for abuse in centralized euthanasia efforts.[21][22] Postwar U.S. discussions in the 1970s, spurred by cases like Karen Ann Quinlan's 1975 coma and the 1976 Supreme Court ruling affirming rights to refuse life-sustaining treatment, fostered "death with dignity" concepts through groups like the Hemlock Society (founded 1980), yet focused on advance directives and oral medications rather than self-operable devices.[23] No functional euthanasia machines existed until 1989.[24]Jack Kevorkian's Devices and Trials (1990s)
Jack Kevorkian, a retired Michigan pathologist, emerged as a central figure in the 1990s debate over euthanasia devices by publicly assisting terminally ill individuals in ending their lives using his homemade apparatuses, thereby challenging existing legal frameworks on suicide assistance. On June 4, 1990, Kevorkian deployed the Thanatron for the first time to aid Janet Adkins, a 54-year-old Alzheimer's patient from Oregon, who self-administered intravenous thiopental followed by potassium chloride in the back of his vehicle, resulting in her death within minutes.[25][26] This incident triggered an immediate investigation by Oakland County authorities, who charged Kevorkian with first-degree murder, but Oakland County Circuit Judge Richard Kuhn dismissed the case on December 13, 1990, ruling that Michigan had no statute explicitly criminalizing assisted suicide at the time.[27][28] Following the Thanatron's debut, Kevorkian shifted to the Mercitron, a simpler device that delivered carbon monoxide gas through a face mask connected to a canister, often conducted in remote settings such as state parks or the interior of his 1976 Volkswagen van to evade interference.[29] These sessions enabled patients to trigger the gas release themselves, with Kevorkian reporting oversight of the process to ensure completion. By March 15, 1998, he had facilitated approximately 100 assisted deaths, primarily using the Mercitron, drawing widespread media attention and prompting Michigan lawmakers to enact a ban on assisted suicide in 1993, though enforcement remained inconsistent due to interpretive challenges in court.[30][31] Kevorkian's persistence led to repeated prosecutions, including four trials between 1994 and 1997 for prior assisted suicides, resulting in three acquittals and one mistrial as juries grappled with the absence of direct causation evidence and patient consent documentation. The turning point came in September 1998 when Kevorkian personally injected Thomas Youk, a 52-year-old man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, with lethal drugs—deviating from his prior self-activation model—and released the videotaped procedure to CBS's 60 Minutes, explicitly daring authorities to prosecute. A jury convicted him of second-degree murder on March 26, 1999, leading to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 to 25 years imposed on April 13, 1999, by Oakland County Circuit Judge Jessica Cooper, who emphasized the breach of medical ethics and homicide statutes.[32][33] Kevorkian served eight years before parole in 2007, a outcome that crystallized the legal risks of euthanasia devices crossing into active euthanasia, fueling national discourse on physician involvement in hastened deaths despite his claims of patient autonomy.[34]Post-Kevorkian Innovations (2000s-Present)
Following Jack Kevorkian's legal battles and imprisonment in the late 1990s, innovations in euthanasia devices increasingly occurred outside the United States, driven by advocates seeking to circumvent medical and legal barriers through technological empowerment of individuals. In 1997, Australian physician Philip Nitschke founded Exit International, initially as the Voluntary Euthanasia Research Foundation, to advance methods for rational self-deliverance independent of physician involvement.[35] In 1998, Nitschke established the NuTech subgroup within Exit International specifically to research and develop new technologies for non-clinical assisted dying, responding to tightened Australian laws that criminalized prior euthanasia software and devices.[36] Exit International's post-2000 efforts emphasized do-it-yourself approaches, including instructional software and kits for compounding lethal substances from accessible precursors, such as barbiturates, to enable users to bypass professional oversight amid global prohibitions.[36] This shift prioritized user-controlled automation, with programs designed to guide precise chemical synthesis for reliable outcomes without direct human assistance.[35] These innovations persisted despite regulatory crackdowns, including Australian customs seizures of related handbooks and equipment in the 2010s.[37] A key technological advancement emerged with the Sarco pod, a 3D-printed euthanasia capsule developed by Nitschke and collaborators starting in the mid-2010s, employing liquid nitrogen to rapidly induce hypoxia for painless death.[38] Prototypes were tested in the Netherlands, with plans for deployment in Switzerland by 2021 due to its relatively permissive framework for assisted suicide.[38] The device was first utilized on September 23, 2024, when a 64-year-old American woman entered the pod at a remote site near Schaffhausen, Switzerland, triggering nitrogen release and her death within minutes.[39] [40] The inaugural Sarco use prompted immediate arrests of facilitators, including a doctor present, and a Swiss criminal probe into potential violations of assisted suicide statutes, which require ensuring non-coercion and capacity.[40] Authorities suspended further operations, questioning the pod's compliance with requirements for reversible processes and medical verification, underscoring persistent legal hurdles even in jurisdictions tolerant of the practice.[41] Despite these setbacks, proponents continue refining such devices to enhance accessibility and autonomy in end-of-life choices.[42]Notable Devices
Thanatron
The Thanatron, developed by pathologist Jack Kevorkian in 1989, functioned as a tabletop intravenous delivery system designed for self-administered lethal injection. It featured three drug-filled syringes connected to an IV line initially delivering saline solution, with the patient activating the process by pressing a button or flipping a switch, which halted the saline and initiated a timed sequence: first, thiopental sodium to induce rapid unconsciousness; followed approximately 60 seconds later by pancuronium bromide, a neuromuscular blocker causing respiratory paralysis; and finally, potassium chloride to induce cardiac arrest.[43][44] The name derived from Thanatos, the Greek personification of death, emphasizing its purpose in enabling voluntary euthanasia for those with terminal illnesses or severe suffering.[45] Kevorkian first deployed the Thanatron on June 4, 1990, assisting Janet Adkins, a 54-year-old woman with early-onset Alzheimer's disease, in a parked Volkswagen van in Michigan; Adkins initiated the sequence herself, resulting in death within minutes from cardiac arrest.[26] The device was used in a limited number of subsequent cases—primarily in the early 1990s—before Kevorkian discontinued it due to increasing difficulties in legally obtaining the controlled pharmaceuticals required, prompting him to develop gas-based alternatives.[46] This mechanism allowed patients nominal control over the terminal act, positioning the Thanatron as a direct affront to prohibitions in medical oaths like the Hippocratic Oath against administering poisons or causing harm, even at a patient's request.[26] Critics highlighted vulnerabilities in the Thanatron's automated timing, including potential mechanical malfunctions in drug delivery or the risk of patient hesitation after unconsciousness but before full lethality, which could result in paralysis without death and necessitate further intervention.[47] Such design flaws underscored broader concerns about reliability in unmonitored self-euthanasia setups, though no verified failures were publicly documented in its uses. The device's simplicity and patient-triggered initiation symbolized Kevorkian's advocacy for democratizing access to death, independent of physician administration.[48]Mercitron
The Mercitron, developed by pathologist Jack Kevorkian in the early 1990s, was a gas-delivery euthanasia device designed to enable self-administered death via inhalation of carbon monoxide.[29] Constructed from readily available parts including a face mask connected by tubing to a compressed gas cylinder, the device allowed the user to initiate the flow of carbon monoxide by turning a valve handle, bypassing the need for intravenous access or medical licensure to administer pharmaceuticals.[29][1] This contrasted with pharmacological systems like Kevorkian's earlier Thanatron, which relied on controlled drug infusions and faced regulatory hurdles after his medical license suspension in 1991.[49] Kevorkian deployed the Mercitron primarily in the rear of a modified 1968 Volkswagen Vanagon, where he conducted dozens of assisted deaths between 1991 and 1998, accounting for the majority of his estimated 130 total cases after shifting from intravenous methods.[29][50] The carbon monoxide induced hypoxia by binding to hemoglobin, preventing oxygen transport and leading to unconsciousness within minutes, followed by death in up to 10 minutes; users often ingested sedatives or muscle relaxants beforehand to minimize anxiety during the process.[29] Kevorkian advocated the method for its simplicity and claimed it produced a relatively painless demise, with the gas causing drowsiness rather than acute distress, though empirical evidence from toxicology indicates potential variability in onset based on concentration and individual physiology.[51] Unlike drug-based devices requiring precise dosing and sterile procedures, the Mercitron evaded restrictions on controlled substances and IV administration, enabling mobility and self-operation even for those with limited dexterity, as the valve could be adapted for foot or hand activation.[49] However, the approach carried risks of incomplete gas delivery if the flow was interrupted or the cylinder depleted prematurely, potentially allowing revival if intervention occurred before full hypoxia; post-mortem, carbon monoxide exposure manifests as cherry-red lividity, aiding forensic detection but noted by Kevorkian for imparting a "better looking" pinkish hue to the body compared to pallor from other causes.[51][1]Deliverance Machine
The Deliverance Machine, developed by Australian physician Philip Nitschke in 1996, comprises a laptop computer running proprietary software interfaced with a medical syringe driver to enable self-administration of a lethal injection.[52][53] The software component, titled Deliverance, presents the user with a sequence of on-screen questions designed to confirm mental competence, persistent intent, and awareness of consequences, requiring affirmative responses via keyboard input to proceed.[54][52] Upon verification through multiple confirmatory prompts—reportedly up to 22 questions in some accounts—the program triggers the syringe driver to infuse a pre-loaded reservoir of barbiturate, such as pentobarbital (Nembutal), which rapidly induces coma followed by respiratory and cardiac arrest.[52][55] This hybrid setup underscores user autonomy by allowing the individual to control the activation without intermediary intervention, shifting the decision-making process from physicians to the patient themselves.[52] Intended for terminally ill patients under the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995, the device facilitated four assisted deaths before the act's repeal on March 25, 1997, which prohibited further use and prompted its donation to the Science Museum in London.[52][53] Post-repeal, Nitschke's Exit International adapted the emphasis on software-guided self-determination into non-hardware formats, including encrypted digital manuals and instructional resources distributed to members for use in permissive jurisdictions like Switzerland, where assisted suicide relies on personal execution of methods without specialized equipment.[36] These evolutions prioritize precision in user adherence to protocols, as deviations could compromise efficacy or safety, though they eliminate dependency on physical devices.[36]Exit International Devices
Exit International was established in 1997 by Philip Nitschke in response to the Australian federal government's override of the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, which had briefly legalized voluntary euthanasia from 1995 to 1997.[35] [56] The organization focuses on developing and providing tools for individuals seeking self-directed end-of-life options, emphasizing methods accessible without reliance on medical intermediaries. Key devices promoted by Exit International include the CoGen, a portable carbon monoxide generator unveiled in 2003, which uses a chemical reaction between formic acid and sulfuric acid to produce lethal concentrations of CO gas for inhalation via an exit bag.[57] [58] The group also distributes test kits, such as barbiturate verification kits and Nembutal sampler kits, to confirm the potency and authenticity of pharmaceuticals for overdose-based suicide, supporting its Peaceful Pill initiative to synthesize or validate reliable oral agents like pentobarbital.[59] These tools aim to empower users with verifiable, non-prescription alternatives to traditional medical euthanasia. Exit International advocates rational suicide as a right for mentally competent adults, extending beyond those with terminal illnesses to include anyone capable of reasoned decision-making, and argues against restrictive criteria that confine access to physicians.[60] [61] Nitschke has critiqued medical gatekeeping as an undue barrier, positioning the organization's resources as a means to bypass institutional controls.[62] The group disseminates these methods through member-only workshops held internationally, including in Australia, the United Kingdom, and online sessions, where participants learn construction and safe use protocols for devices like gas generators.[63] [64]Sarco Pod
The Sarco Pod is a 3D-printed euthanasia capsule developed by Australian physician Philip Nitschke, founder of Exit International, with initial prototypes and designs emerging around 2017. The device features a detachable, coffin-like chamber mounted on a modular base housing a liquid nitrogen canister. Once the user enters and seals the pod, they activate a button to initiate nitrogen gas release, which floods the interior and reduces oxygen levels to about 5% within moments, leading to unconsciousness in under 10 seconds and cardiopulmonary arrest typically within 5 to 10 minutes.[65][38] Intended for self-operated suicide without requiring medical personnel, the Sarco Pod's design emphasizes portability and decentralization, with the capsule printable via 3D technology and the base reusable across multiple units. Nitschke promoted it as a non-clinical alternative to traditional assisted dying methods, arguing it minimizes external involvement to ensure user autonomy. Deployment plans targeted Switzerland due to its legal allowances for voluntary assisted suicide, with public unveilings and testing discussions occurring as early as 2018.[66][67] The device's first documented use took place on September 23, 2024, involving a 64-year-old woman from the United States at a remote forested site near Merishausen, Switzerland. She entered the pod and triggered the nitrogen release, resulting in her death shortly thereafter, as confirmed by organizers who notified authorities. This incident immediately triggered police detentions of multiple witnesses and participants, including German activist Florian Willet, who was present and later arrested on suspicion of potential involvement in non-voluntary killing. Swiss prosecutors initiated a criminal probe to verify the act's voluntary nature, scrutinizing video evidence, medical history, and procedural logs for signs of coercion or malfunction.[7][68][69] Amid the ongoing investigation, Willet, a physician and co-president of the pro-euthanasia group The Last Resort, died by assisted suicide on May 5, 2025, in Germany at age 47. His death, occurring while facing scrutiny over the Sarco case, underscored unresolved questions about participant oversight, procedural safeguards, and the empirical reliability of the pod's self-administration mechanism in real-world applications. No further uses have been publicly reported as of October 2025, with the episode amplifying concerns over unregulated deployment despite claims of peaceful efficacy.[70][71][72]Technical Principles
Pharmacological Delivery Systems
Pharmacological delivery systems for euthanasia rely on intravenous administration of lethal drug combinations to ensure rapid unconsciousness followed by respiratory and cardiac arrest. The standard sequence, adapted from protocols used in capital punishment, begins with a high-dose barbiturate such as sodium thiopental (typically 3-5 grams) to induce deep anesthesia and coma within seconds.[73] This is immediately followed by a neuromuscular blocking agent like pancuronium bromide (100-150 mg), which paralyzes respiratory muscles, and potassium chloride (200-300 mEq), which disrupts cardiac rhythm to cause asystole.[74] From first principles, this multi-drug approach targets sequential physiological failures—central nervous system suppression, diaphragmatic paralysis, and electrolyte-induced arrhythmia—to minimize survival odds, as single agents risk incomplete lethality or prolonged distress.[75] Effective delivery mandates reliable venous access, often via a peripheral IV catheter inserted into an arm vein, which poses inherent challenges in self-administration or non-clinical settings. Dehydrated or cachectic individuals, common among those seeking euthanasia due to terminal illness, exhibit vein collapse or fragility, increasing insertion failure rates to 20-50% in difficult cases per vascular access studies.[76] [77] Empirical data from medical assistance in dying (MAID) programs report intravenous access failures in up to 5-10% of cases, sometimes necessitating alternative routes or delays that heighten anxiety or procedural errors.[78] Overdose variability arises from imprecise dosing or incomplete infusion, potentially allowing partial consciousness during paralysis—a failure mode where the paralytic masks gasping or distress signals, as critiqued in forensic analyses of such protocols.[11] In Jack Kevorkian's applications during the 1990s, pharmacological systems achieved reported success in inducing death without overt failures, though autopsy reviews of his cases revealed inconsistencies, such as non-terminal conditions in over 70% of participants and variable drug absorption patterns suggesting suboptimal venous delivery in some.[79] [80] These findings underscore causal risks: without medical oversight, factors like patient movement or air emboli can interrupt flow, reducing efficacy below 100% despite claims of near-certainty. Modern innovations, including automated syringe drivers or auto-injectors for sequential release, face substantial regulatory barriers, as controlled substances like barbiturates require prescription oversight, limiting development outside licensed euthanasia jurisdictions like Belgium or Canada.[11] Such devices aim to mitigate human error but remain unrefined due to ethical scrutiny and scarcity of clinical trials, with general auto-injector reliability hovering at 90-95% in non-lethal applications.[81]Gas and Inhalation Methods
Gas and inhalation methods for euthanasia devices induce death through hypoxia by delivering toxic or oxygen-displacing gases via masks, bags, or enclosed chambers. Carbon monoxide (CO) and inert gases like nitrogen or helium represent the primary approaches, with CO impairing oxygen transport and inert gases rapidly diluting atmospheric oxygen to levels incompatible with consciousness.[82][9] In CO inhalation, the gas binds to hemoglobin with an affinity 200-250 times greater than oxygen, forming carboxyhemoglobin that prevents tissue oxygenation and causes progressive cerebral and cardiac hypoxia.[82] This physiological mechanism leads to loss of consciousness within minutes at sufficient concentrations, followed by cardiorespiratory arrest, though initial symptoms such as headache, dizziness, or nausea may occur if exposure is gradual.[83] Proponents describe the process as akin to falling asleep due to the absence of air hunger from CO's failure to stimulate chemoreceptors effectively.[57] Post-mortem examination reveals cherry-red livor mortis and blood coloration from stable carboxyhemoglobin saturation, distinguishing it from other hypoxic deaths.[84] The Mercitron device, used by Jack Kevorkian in the 1990s, employed a user-activated valve to release CO from a compressed gas canister through a disposable face mask, achieving lethal exposure in assisted suicides.[85] Delivery risks include mask leakage causing incomplete hypoxia or user panic during onset, potentially prolonging distress before unconsciousness.[82] Inert gas methods, such as helium or nitrogen asphyxiation, displace oxygen without generating toxic byproducts, leading to hypoxia via simple dilution of inspired air to below 10% oxygen concentration.[9] Nitrogen, as in the Sarco pod, is vaporized from a liquid canister to flood an enclosed capsule, reducing oxygen levels to under 1% within seconds and inducing unconsciousness in 10-20 seconds due to absent carbon dioxide buildup, which prevents reflexive breathing urges.[38] Death follows from sustained anoxia, typically within 5-10 minutes, with no characteristic post-mortem discoloration beyond general pallor.[86] Helium alternatives, often paired with plastic "exit bags" promoted by organizations like Exit International, achieve similar rapid effects but rely on manual setup, increasing risks of bag dislodgement or seal failure during application.[9] Empirical cases indicate inert gases produce faster, more predictable unconsciousness than CO, though technical malfunctions or pre-existing claustrophobia can trigger abortive struggles.[87]Hypoxia-Inducing Capsules
Hypoxia-inducing capsules operate by enclosing the user in a sealed chamber where ambient air is rapidly replaced with an inert gas, such as nitrogen, to deplete oxygen levels to non-breathable concentrations below 6%.[88] This method induces cerebral hypoxia, leading to unconsciousness and death without the respiratory distress associated with carbon dioxide accumulation, as the inert gas allows exhalation of CO2, potentially resulting in sensations of calm, sedation, or euphoria prior to loss of consciousness.[88] Unlike open-air inhalation methods, such as hoods or masks that may permit gas leakage or incomplete oxygen displacement, capsules provide a controlled, fully enclosed environment that ensures efficient gas replacement and minimizes external interference.[89] The Sarco pod exemplifies this technology, featuring a detachable 3D-printed capsule mounted on a modular base equipped with a liquid nitrogen canister for gas release.[90] The 3D-printable design facilitates low-cost replication and widespread production potential, bypassing reliance on specialized manufacturing.[90] Upon activation, the system floods the interior with nitrogen, displacing oxygen and triggering hypoxia within seconds to minutes, depending on chamber volume and flow rate.[38] Animal studies on inert gas asphyxiation, including nitrogen, demonstrate rapid onset of unconsciousness, often within 20-40 seconds in rodents, with reduced behavioral signs of aversion compared to CO2 methods, as measured by electroencephalography and observable agitation.[89] [91] These findings support claims of minimal distress in preclinical models, though direct human trials remain ethically prohibited, limiting data to extrapolations from physiological simulations and execution protocols.[92] The absence of CO2-induced panic responses in such enclosures further differentiates capsules from open-air systems, where partial rebreathing might elevate CO2 levels and provoke discomfort.[89]Legal Frameworks
Status in the United States
Active euthanasia, defined as the intentional administration of a lethal agent by another person to cause death, remains illegal in all 50 U.S. states and is prosecutable as homicide or murder under state criminal laws.[93] Physician-assisted suicide, involving the provision of lethal means for self-administration, is prohibited in 39 states but authorized by statute or court ruling in 11 states—California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—and the District of Columbia as of October 2025.[94] These permissive frameworks strictly limit assistance to qualified terminally ill adults self-ingesting prescribed oral medications under medical supervision, explicitly excluding mechanical devices or third-party administration, which would constitute euthanasia.[95] Euthanasia devices faced early legal challenges through the case of Jack Kevorkian, a pathologist who constructed and deployed the Thanatron (a device delivering intravenous thiopental followed by potassium chloride) and Mercitron (a gas mask releasing carbon monoxide) to assist over 130 suicides between 1990 and 1998, primarily in Michigan.[31] Kevorkian evaded or survived multiple acquittals and mistrials for assisted suicides involving these machines, but his 1999 conviction for second-degree murder—after videotaping and administering a lethal injection to ALS patient Thomas Youk—resulted in a 10- to 25-year sentence and affirmed that deploying such devices constitutes criminal homicide when the operator retains control or causation exceeds mere provision of means.[96][97] This ruling reinforced state precedents against homemade or operator-involved apparatuses, prompting Michigan to codify assisted suicide bans and influencing prosecutorial approaches nationwide by demonstrating judicial intolerance for engineered self-killing tools outside regulated medical contexts.[98] Federally, no statute directly regulates euthanasia devices as hardware, leaving primary enforcement to state criminal codes, though the 1997 Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act prohibits using federal funds to provide, promote, or support assisted suicide or euthanasia activities.[99] Practical barriers persist via Food and Drug Administration authority over pharmaceuticals and medical devices; lethal agents or delivery systems lack approval for suicidal intent, rendering their integration into machines inaccessible without violating federal drug controls or state prohibitions on unapproved uses.[100] Recent discussions of self-operated pods or similar innovations, such as the Sarco capsule, confirm their incompatibility with U.S. laws, as even passive mechanisms risk classification as unlawful assistance in non-permissive jurisdictions or deviation from self-ingestion mandates where aid-in-dying is allowed.[100]Developments in Europe, Especially Switzerland
In Switzerland, assisted suicide is permitted under Article 115 of the Swiss Penal Code, which penalizes inducement or assistance only if motivated by selfish interests, allowing non-profit facilitation for altruistic reasons since 1942.[101] Organizations such as Dignitas conduct assisted suicides using pharmacological methods, where competent patients self-administer a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital after medical evaluation, ensuring compliance with requirements for unbearable suffering and sound decision-making capacity.[102] This framework has supported thousands of cases annually, primarily involving foreigners seeking alternatives unavailable in their home countries.[103] Innovations in device-based methods, however, have strained these tolerances. The Sarco pod, a capsule deploying liquid nitrogen to induce rapid hypoxia, was used for the first time on September 23, 2024, resulting in the death of a 64-year-old American woman in Merishausen, Switzerland.[7] Authorities arrested several individuals, including the presiding physician and device creator's associates, investigating potential homicide, improper assistance, and the deceased's mental capacity, as Swiss law mandates voluntary acts by individuals of sound mind without external pressure.[104] This case underscores conflicts between established supervised protocols and autonomous devices lacking real-time oversight, prompting scrutiny over whether such technologies align with penal code safeguards against abuse.[105] In the Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia has been legal since 2002, practices are confined to physician-executed or -assisted acts under rigorous due-care criteria, including repeated requests, informed consent, and consultation with independent doctors, explicitly excluding unsupervised patient-operated devices.[106] Expansions have permitted euthanasia for intractable psychiatric disorders, with the Netherlands recording 138 cases solely on mental health grounds in 2023, up from prior years, amid debates on diagnostic reliability and alternatives.[107] Belgium similarly reported over 450 psychiatric euthanasia cases cumulatively by 2023, reflecting broadening interpretations of unbearable suffering but maintaining physician centrality to mitigate coercion risks.[108] The European Union lacks harmonized regulations on euthanasia or assisted suicide, leaving policies to national discretion and resulting in disparate approaches.[109] Germany's 2015 law prohibiting organized, business-like assisted suicide services—intended to curb commercialization—excluded device-facilitated aid but was ruled unconstitutional in 2020 for infringing personal self-determination, though active euthanasia remains banned and passive measures prevail.[110] These variations highlight Switzerland's outlier tolerance for foreign-assisted suicide amid broader continental restrictions on innovative or non-medical methods.Global Variations and Prohibitions
In Canada, medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalized under federal law effective June 17, 2016, permitting eligible adults to self-administer clinician-prescribed lethal medications after rigorous assessments, but autonomous euthanasia devices such as hypoxia-inducing capsules remain prohibited as they circumvent mandatory medical oversight and consent verification protocols.[111] This restriction aligns with provincial regulations emphasizing clinician involvement to ensure compliance with eligibility criteria, including intolerable suffering from grievous and irremediable conditions.[112] Australia exhibits state-level variations in voluntary assisted dying (VAD) frameworks, with Victoria pioneering legalization on June 19, 2019, followed by other jurisdictions like New South Wales and Queensland by 2023, allowing self-administration of prescribed substances under strict safeguards; however, independent devices promoted by figures like Philip Nitschke have been effectively banned, with Nitschke's medical registration suspended in 2014 for disseminating non-clinician methods and his Deliverance machine prototypes seized as unlawful.[113] These prohibitions stem from criminal codes treating unauthorized assistance in death as culpable homicide, despite VAD's empirical uptake exceeding 1,000 cases annually across states by 2024.[114] In Japan, euthanasia devices are categorically prohibited under penal code provisions equating assisted suicide with murder or aiding self-killing, as affirmed by judicial precedents like the 1995 Nagayama case, where a physician received a suspended sentence for injecting barbiturates; no legislative framework permits active euthanasia, rendering devices illegal despite ongoing academic debates on passive withdrawal of care.[115][116] Across most Asian and African nations, possession or use of euthanasia devices is criminalized as murder or suicide facilitation, with zero jurisdictions decriminalizing physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia as of 2023, reflecting cultural and legal emphases on life's sanctity over individual autonomy in end-of-life decisions.[117] In Islamic countries, religious edicts (fatwas) from bodies like the Islamic Fiqh Council explicitly forbid euthanasia as haram, akin to prohibited suicide or homicide, with legal codes in nations such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt imposing severe penalties including execution for aiding death.[118][119]| Region/Jurisdiction | Status of Euthanasia Devices | Key Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | Prohibited; self-administration limited to prescribed drugs under MAiD | Criminal Code amendments (2016); clinician oversight required[111] |
| Australia (states with VAD) | Prohibited outside clinician-prescribed protocols; independent devices banned | State VAD acts (2017–2023); federal bans on promotion[113] |
| Japan | Prohibited; treated as murder | Penal Code Articles 199, 202; no euthanasia statutes[115] |
| Islamic nations | Prohibited; fatwas equate to suicide/homicide | Sharia-derived laws; e.g., Iran's penal code[118] |
| Broader Asia/Africa | Prohibited; no decriminalization | National criminal laws viewing as unlawful killing[117] |
