In view of UHC delibrately pushing policies with Do Not Resuscitate to medically vulnerable policy holders
In the United States, corporations are not typically charged with murder, even when their policies result in deaths. Instead, legal actions often focus on civil liabilities, such as wrongful death or negligence claims. For example, UnitedHealth Group has faced lawsuits alleging that its use of an AI model with a 90% error rate led to the denial of medically necessary care for elderly patients, resulting in significant harm. 
While some jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom, have enacted laws such as the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 to hold corporations criminally liable for deaths caused by gross breaches of duty, the U.S. legal system has been more hesitant to pursue criminal charges against corporations for such actions. This reluctance is due in part to challenges in attributing intent and the diffuse nature of corporate decision-making. 
Therefore, while corporations can face significant civil penalties and reputational damage for policies that lead to harm, criminal charges like murder are rarely applied in the U.S. context. This legal framework has led to ongoing debates about corporate accountability and the adequacy of existing laws to address systemic harms caused by corporate policies.
Courtesy of Chat GPT which I asked to verify
Original:
Because the legal system, especially in corporate-friendly jurisdictions like the United States, was deliberately not built to treat systemic, profit-driven harm as murder. The law distinguishes between individual criminal liability and structural or corporate acts—even when the consequences are identical or worse.
Here’s why it’s not legally considered murder—even if morally, it absolutely should be:
1. Intent is hard to pin on individuals: Murder in most jurisdictions requires mens rea—the intent to kill. Corporations diffuse decision-making across committees, memos, software, and departments. Even if the outcome is death, the intent is claimed to be “cost efficiency,” “risk mitigation,” or “compliance.” Executives are insulated by plausible deniability and legal abstraction.
2. Corporate personhood does not equal human criminality: In law, a corporation is a “legal person,” but you can’t imprison it. Fines and lawsuits are the most common penalties. Actual criminal charges like homicide are almost never pursued unless a direct, unambiguous act of violence occurred—and even then, prosecutors often settle.
3. Regulatory capture protects the guilty: Major insurers like UnitedHealthcare operate with tacit immunity because their wealth intersects with political influence. Lobbying shapes the law. Lawmakers rarely criminalize the conduct of the industries that fund them.
4. Wrongful death ≠ murder: When someone dies because their treatment was denied, survivors can sue for wrongful death, negligence, or breach of contract. These are civil, not criminal. They don’t involve jail. The company might pay a settlement—but no executive faces a jury for homicide.
5. AI systems provide cover: When an algorithm is used to deny care, blame is pushed onto “automated processes.” This technological scapegoating lets humans behind the scenes claim they weren’t aware or that errors were unintended. But the AI was built to reduce payouts. The outcome was the purpose. It’s death by design, without accountability.
This is why critics call it sanitized murder. If a CEO put a gun to a dying patient’s head and pulled the trigger to avoid a $50,000 payout, that would be murder. If the same result is achieved via an insurance algorithm and a denial letter, it’s “a cost-saving measure.”
But there’s a growing consensus among ethicists, legal scholars, and enraged citizens that we’re long past the point of euphemisms. When corporations knowingly take actions that result in death for profit, they are not simply negligent.
They are executing policy that kills.
And if the law won’t call that murder—maybe the public must.
While some jurisdictions, like the United Kingdom, have enacted laws such as the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 to hold corporations criminally liable for deaths caused by gross breaches of duty, the U.S. legal system has been more hesitant to pursue criminal charges against corporations for such actions. This reluctance is due in part to challenges in attributing intent and the diffuse nature of corporate decision-making. 
Therefore, while corporations can face significant civil penalties and reputational damage for policies that lead to harm, criminal charges like murder are rarely applied in the U.S. context. This legal framework has led to ongoing debates about corporate accountability and the adequacy of existing laws to address systemic harms caused by corporate policies.
Courtesy of Chat GPT which I asked to verify
Original:
Because the legal system, especially in corporate-friendly jurisdictions like the United States, was deliberately not built to treat systemic, profit-driven harm as murder. The law distinguishes between individual criminal liability and structural or corporate acts—even when the consequences are identical or worse.
Here’s why it’s not legally considered murder—even if morally, it absolutely should be:
1. Intent is hard to pin on individuals: Murder in most jurisdictions requires mens rea—the intent to kill. Corporations diffuse decision-making across committees, memos, software, and departments. Even if the outcome is death, the intent is claimed to be “cost efficiency,” “risk mitigation,” or “compliance.” Executives are insulated by plausible deniability and legal abstraction.
2. Corporate personhood does not equal human criminality: In law, a corporation is a “legal person,” but you can’t imprison it. Fines and lawsuits are the most common penalties. Actual criminal charges like homicide are almost never pursued unless a direct, unambiguous act of violence occurred—and even then, prosecutors often settle.
3. Regulatory capture protects the guilty: Major insurers like UnitedHealthcare operate with tacit immunity because their wealth intersects with political influence. Lobbying shapes the law. Lawmakers rarely criminalize the conduct of the industries that fund them.
4. Wrongful death ≠ murder: When someone dies because their treatment was denied, survivors can sue for wrongful death, negligence, or breach of contract. These are civil, not criminal. They don’t involve jail. The company might pay a settlement—but no executive faces a jury for homicide.
5. AI systems provide cover: When an algorithm is used to deny care, blame is pushed onto “automated processes.” This technological scapegoating lets humans behind the scenes claim they weren’t aware or that errors were unintended. But the AI was built to reduce payouts. The outcome was the purpose. It’s death by design, without accountability.
This is why critics call it sanitized murder. If a CEO put a gun to a dying patient’s head and pulled the trigger to avoid a $50,000 payout, that would be murder. If the same result is achieved via an insurance algorithm and a denial letter, it’s “a cost-saving measure.”
But there’s a growing consensus among ethicists, legal scholars, and enraged citizens that we’re long past the point of euphemisms. When corporations knowingly take actions that result in death for profit, they are not simply negligent.
They are executing policy that kills.
And if the law won’t call that murder—maybe the public must.
31-35, M
