Mercy Killing

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their

V. Death is not easy at all, not for the patient of their family, but it can be more “peaceful” and everyone should have the right to choose their own end when all that lies ahead is needless pain and suffering for an end that is certainly coming.

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

Is it right to be able to chose to end one’s life? So many questions keep coming up. There are many different views on the euthanasia debate and then there is no clear line on where the difference between murder and mercy.

In almost every case of a terminal disease, pain is intolerable and seeing someone in such agony is heartbreaking. For example, Brittany Maynard, a 29 year old brain cancer patient who had to move to Oregon so she can avail of the Death with Dignity act. “Maynard knew that her form of brain cancer would be excruciating. She would endure swelling of the brain that would very likely cause seizures, painful headaches and the gradual loss of bodily function. Doctors know that for about 5 percent of the population, no amount of morphine can block the agonizing pain the terminally ill endure” (EDITORIAL: Dying with dignity). Palliative care can often be provided for the dying patients and alleviating pain to provide comfort for the dying has always been the priority. “Palliative care focuses on relieving the symptoms, particularly the pain, of incurable illness.” (Palliative Care) But, in relieving pain through the prescribed medications there are also side effects that are caused by the prescribed pain suppressors and two examples will be lethargy and it compromises breathing. In most cases the effectivity of the pain medication may no longer alleviate the pain. If a patient will be in such agony for the remaining days or weeks the quality of life is no longer present. The agony of pain prevents a patient from performing even just the bodily functions.

The issue arises once more in the arguments concerning Euthanasia. Euthanasia, otherwise termed as “mercy killing” presents the option of a medical professional assisting a chronically ill, competent patient, in his/her own death. The argument for this is based around the a person’s quality of life. If the patient has no quality of life and is never going to improve, why let them suffer? In order to determine if an individual should be allowed to end their life, we must first determine if this individual can be considered a person. If so, then a person has a right to a good quality of life, and should be allowed to decide if he/she will continue living in misery. If not, then a doctor must do what is medically best, ie: keep the individual alive as long as possible.

Keeping a person alive by excessive treatment might devastate the family and make the dying suffer tremendously in the end. “Advance medical technology that seems to one person a godsend, extending life, may seem to another a curse that only prolong dying. Dignity can be devalued amid technology focused solely on the biological organism.”

The direct arguments in physicians-assisted suicide state that under no circumstances is the killing of another human being justified. Life is precious no matter how low the quality is and, should be valued at all times.

In one of the articles that I read, it stated that there are four primary arguments for legalizing doctor-assisted suicide. One of the arguments is the Mercy Argument. The Mercy Argument in summary talks about the immense pain and indignity of prolonged suffering, and that cannot be ignored. The next argument is the Patient’s Right to Self-Determination. This argument is trying to say that the patient has the right to choose the

Rapid and dramatic developments in medicine and technology have given us the power to save more lives than ever possible in the past. Medicine has put at our disposal the means to cure or to reduce the suffering of people afflicted with diseases that were once fatal or painful. At the same time, however, medical technology has given us the power to sustain the lives (or some would say, prolong the deaths) of patients whose physical and mental capabilities cannot be restored, whose degenerating conditions cannot be

In the debate over euthanasia, the opponent concludes that euthanasia should be illegal because it is goes against nature, dignity, personal-interests and has a practical effect. On the other side of the debate, the supporter concludes that euthanasia should be legal because moral principles, what it really mean to kill, end suffering, the difference between injury and not injury. In this essay I will conclude that euthanasia should be legal.

Part 4 No human being wants to see other human being go through pain or suffer. It is good to have pity on individual that is suffering without the hope to survive and allow them to die peacefully with dignity. Most of the people that has pains and terminal illness seek mercy killing, in this situation, no one can avoid death and their suffering is in vein. The question in this ethical problem is that: is relieving suffering the reason we kill or is it unethical or immoral to kill? Whether it is ok to kill is the most central to this ethical issue. Fundamentally killing another human being is not ok, but unlike most ethical and moral theories, life has exception. Some individuals do not think twice at the thought of killing others, but what

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and

In current times we have made many technological advances that have boosted the medical productivity in hospitals. However, the rapid development of medicine is far from being a long term resolve for many health issues. We have a plethora of people whose quality of life is very low and has no chance of improving. During these situations allowing the person to end their life via euthanasia should be allowed. I will argue that Euthanasia is morally permissible in some cases because there are several moral justifications that argue for ending one’s life.