Mercy killing and the military.

[KarlGauss]

In this thread regarding My Lai, a link (http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/usarsa/HUMANRT/Human%20Rights%202000/my-lai.htm) was posted by MEBuckner.

In that link (http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/usarsa/HUMANRT/Human%20Rights%202000/my-lai.htm), a statement is made:The instructor has the option at this juncture to discuss the issue of mercy killings, and the circumstances (extreme) under which they are permitted. Generally, it’s ill-advised; however, it may be justifiable under extreme and clear-cut circumstances -- i.e., the wounded soldier is sure to die, is suffering a painful death, no medical help is in sight, and the actor has just intent or just cause. Bear in mind that the actor will be held to an objective standard (the frame of mind of a reasonable person under the same circumstances) and not a subjective standard (the actor’s frame of mind). Mercy killings are done at the perpetrator’s own risk for misjudgment. If wrong, it’s homicide.

(The quote is about 40% down the page. Look for extreme and clear-cut bolded and underlined.)

My question is this: Is it truly the case that "mercy killing" is sometimes permitted by the US military? IIRC, that is definitely NOT the case in civilian law.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I know it is permitted in the British military. I once watched a documentary on the Falklands war when the Argentinian soldiers were subjected to fragmentary bombs inflicting horrendous trauma. One sergeant openly described putting an enemy soldier out of his misery.

[KarlGauss]

The link above was from a US source, though. So, my question still stands.

[Walton Firm]

IANA American, nor am I in the military or a lawyer, nor have I ever killed anybody mercifully or otherwise, nor do I have any other qualifications that would make me particularly qualified to answer this question. All that said:

I suspect that if you were in a situation where a person was sure to die in the immediate future, suffering horribly, no medical help in sight and no way to summon medical help in time, and you could document all those facts afterwards, the law would probably go easy on you, especially if you got a jury trial.

The only scenario I can realistically think of is if the two of you were hitchhiking through a remote area and something went horribly wrong. In the military such scenarios are much more likely, which is presumably why they have special rules for it and civilian law doesn't.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with euthanasia, which may be what you were referring to when you said "that is definitely not the case in civilian law."

[hawkmtp]

I am in the US military and can tell you there is no such thing as "mercy killing." That would fall under the umbrella of "situational ethics" and that is frowned on a great deal. Mission requirements may keep you from rendering immediate aid to a fallen enemy but in no way are we allowed to make a decision to end the life of an enemy that is no longer able to defend himself due to wounds.

the book answer would be something like this. If you come across an enemy that is almost dead and mission requirements do not allow you to help him you move on and complete the mission. After completion of the mission if you can return to him and render aid do so. At that point he is a POW and has all the rights as one.