34 replies to this topic

[cinthia]

1)Introduction about the topic :

What is mercy killing?Mercy killing or Euthanasia is nothing but the
practice of killing a person or animal,in a painless or minimally painful way,
for merciful reasons,usually to end suffering of a patient before death.In wider
sense it depicts assisting sufferers to commit sudden death rather than suffering
from long,in particular physician-assisted suicide.

In some cases,Mercy killing has been legalized in Netherlands,Belgium,
but in no other countries.There are many other reasons that why mercy killing
is not the best resort and also why it is beneficial in some cases.This decision
is based on the patients' rights and dignity,doctors' rights,religious beliefs,society's views,
morality and other resolutions available.

Now requesting all of you to give positive/negative opinion regarding mercy killing.

2)Opinions against of mercy killing :

i) Scoetiy's view:Active euthanasia is akin to murder

The term which is basically synonymous with the phrase "mercy killing" that is
Euthanasia.The term Euthanasia is a greek term,which means "good death".
But many people aren't finding anything good about Euthonesia except its name
meaning "good death".As commonly defined and used, euthanasia involves that
actions of one party to hasten the death of another,so many people of today's world
are not cosidering mercy killing as merciful,in their view mercy killing is also a kind
of killing or murder process.

ii) Society's view:Family persons may misuse this:

They are also right that "mercy killing" might be abused
by some families.To get property they may ask doctor to kill the eldest family person
by this method.And as corruption is everywhere,so this may happen true.In such case
only the patient will be victim.

3)Morality:

Not all killing is murder in a strict legal sense, but euthanasia defintiely comes quite close as there is premeditation, intent, and action.The only place I can justify the taking of a human life is the case of capital punishment for murder.I know of no cases where the victim of euthanasia was a convicted murderer.Most often it is a person terminally ill or in great pain or suffering some other seriously debilitating and irreversible condition which makes death look preferrable. The problem is that we live in community, and are inherently relational beings.Our life is a gift given from a source quite apart from us.Life is a trust.Suicide, 'assisted suicide,' euthanasia, and homicide all have in common an action taken to end a human life.Motives and methods do not change the outcome.That we do it because we care;that we do it 'gently' does not alter the fact that a life ends unnaturally.

So on the point of morality,major part of common people are thinking that everyone's life has quality,no matter what their social status is.Life is a gift from God and only God can take it from us.If you allow exceptions to the principle that human life is scared, you weaken the principle itself.Only a minor part of population is able to expend any amount they can to stave off death,even when there is no hope for recovery.But major part of peopple are not able to maintain treatment with huge cost.There are those - and their number is growing - who opt to receive neither treatment nor hastening death.They choose to allow nature to take its own course.They are just given medication only to ease their visible suffering, but that's not enough to prevent respiratory failure.They have chosen wisdom over knowledge.Theirs is truly death with dignity.Coz they enjoy each and every moment of life till his/her last breath.

4)In favour of the topic:

It is an important question in today's society that whether mercy killing is really merciful or not.I think mercy killing is an exceptional type of killing method.

E.g.,Maja, a married lady said in an article published on 23rd may,2005 that she forced her husband to kill a hummingbird.Because,their neighborhood cat had it and made half-killed, but just kept playing with it while it was horribly suffering.And it became extremely painful/severe condition for the half-dead bird.So Maja requested her husband to kill the bird with knife and he did.---So this can be said as mercy killing and it is not wrong.Her husband killed the bird to give it relieve from severe pain.
But u all may say that the humming bird is an animal and we are human being.So,both can't get treated in same manner.

So,i m giving another example is,if a cancer patient is suffering fromintolerable pain few hours before his/her definite death and doctor is also declaring that he will survive maximum few hours more----he will just suffer now with this pain and gradually he'll die with hours.In case of such patient,it is really tough for the patient to count his time with such king of severe pain.And it is really meaningless to suffer with this kind of intolerable pain specially when death after few hours is definite.Only In such a condition---there is no question of enjoying or feeling last breath.In such case,living few more hours becomes highly painful to the patient.So,only in such case mercy killing should be applicable to give him peace for ever,to give him relief from such a painful death.Offcourse human being loves life,offcourse human being feels and enjoys each and every moment of life.But life is not as it is to everyone.Only the sufferer know that how much horrible it is to hear that he/she will live for few hours more and until then he/she has to tolerate an intolerable physical pain coz he/she is cancer patient.So,in such a case if euthonasia is applied,it is for good purpose only but not for harm.

REFERENCE:
---------------

1)http://experts.about...aism-952/Mercy- killing.htm

2)http://www.torah.org...yredefined.html

3)http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Euthanasia

4)http://www.breakingn...yDeathPill.html

5)http://www.nrlc.org/...asia/index.html

6)http://www.echeat.co...say.php?t=27442

7)http://www.freeessays.tv/b2453.htm

8)http://www.hospicepa...able-death.html

9)http://www.essayworl...icide/491.shtml

[illini319]

Well let me look at it this way: Would those opposed to mercy killing be similarly opposed to suicide? In this scenario, no one is helping in the killing. Although would you consider a doctor handing a terminal patient the lethal syringe an assisted suicide or euthanasia? Life is certainly a very precious thing. We all have one; we are all unique. We like to consider that we have been given free reign in this world: those who believe in God would say that Man was given free will. Those who do not believe in a God will say that because there is no pre-ordained past/present/future then we live and die by our choices. So why is it, then, that people (religious or not) consider euthanasia an apalling thing? If we all believe that our most precious gift is uniquely our own, then why would killing oneself (by assistance or otherwise) ever be relevant to another person (family or not). There is the consideration of being psychologically capable of making a lucid decision regarding this matter; but notwithstanding this.. If a perfectly lucid patient who is terminally ill and in interminable pain wanted to be relieved of their duress... then why not?

[shiv]

one of the most thought provoking pieces i read in a long time..kuddos cinthia. as for my opinion on this issue i am certainly against it..even if the situation at hand in a particular case makes killing and putting an unnatural end - going against nature - seems merciful. but we may just be robbing off the person the chance to make it his last death i.e. his last life on earth, out of out ignorance. my Hindu belief says the sufferings we undergo are to eliminate the bag of 'samaskaras' or impressions(out of feelings/actions both good and bad..not just sins as in popular belief) that we have accumulated in our various lives(previous births) and we are born again and again untill we have no samaskara at the moment of a death. which implies each life is a chance to refine ourselves better ourselves to get 'liberated' - and going through pain is an essential part of it. we go through as much pain as samaskaras we have. so if a person is dying a horribly painful death - it may be nature's way or even 'gift' to him to 'exhaust' all his samaskaras before he breathes his last. we in out 'mercy' might just be ruining the point of his own life..in which case i just cant think of anything more unmerciful...dragging a fellow back to earth to come and suffer again by not letting him reach the brighter world or god whatever you call it.


beliefs and faiths may vary...but the general principle should always be- DONT MESS WITH NATURE. simplay because we ourselves dont know why we are born , what are trying to 'live' inside a world and family we were 'put into'. we dont choose what we were given , we dont know why we were made to be what we are and not anyother way..each of us are in a journey in search of meaning of life - we are left here like someone put into a forest blindfolded. in such a scenario, with very little understanding , its simply utterly wrong to kill another person- when we simply dont know what he is going through and why he is going through it. pain as it may be in the physical level - quite simply - what if he is realising god or the truth or enlightenment - whatever you want to call it - in those last moments of unbearable pain and we intrude and pull the plug! merciless!

[cyborgxxi]

Interesting question, I haven't heard this one for a while. I think that it really depends on the status of the subject to be "mercy killed." What do you consider a 'mercy kill' is it just injecting the lethal dose of medicine or is it also pulling the plug or taking someone off lif support. I believe that if a person is dying and is going to die within a couple of days or hours than to speed up the process would seem humane. However, the choice should ultimately be up to the person and his/her family. If that person asks for it and they have been pronounced incurable than perhaps it is time to relieve them of their pain. But if there is a chance for that person, though they live in unimaginable pain, then perhaps their input should be partially ignored.

My Uncle died recently and his family had to make the choice to take him off life support because he was nothing but a vegetable in the end. Would this be considered murder or would it be considered relieving him of the life that had already left him? I think this should definitely be thought over carefully but I also think that sometimes to die is better to live. However is it within our power to decide who should die and who should live....I don't know.

[pomjim]

This is a post that I can relate to, as my mother was in hospital for over a year, in a situation which was awful. She had little comprehension of her surroundings, and physically was a mess. Both myself and my father wished for her to be put out of her misery, but there was no way it could be done. Thankfully she finally died, and I say “thankfully” simply because, knowing my mother, she would not have wanted to live (if what she was doing could be described as living) as she was.

I believe that, if the quality of life for a person has descended to a level which they, and those close to them, know will not improve, then they have the right to die in some sort of dignity, after all, we in the West are supposed to believe in freedom of choice, but, if faced with the greatest of all choices, to live or die, the individual has no choice whatever.

[Darren]

I don't believe that anyone has any right to decide what other people can or can not do unless what they are doing harms them. I disaggree with the death penalty because killing the criminal is against his will, i don't believe that assisted suicide should be illegal, however a legal document should be made which requires the signature of both parties (the person who wants to die and the person killing them) to ensure that the person wants to die and that the person isnt just killing them for his/her own profit. It would probably be a good idea to require a reason for the assiste suicide, this reason should be something that causes permanent uncureable suffering of some type (be that physical or emotional).

[evought]

Interesting question, I haven't heard this one for a while. I think that it really depends on the status of the subject to be "mercy killed." What do you consider a 'mercy kill' is it just injecting the lethal dose of medicine or is it also pulling the plug or taking someone off lif support. I believe that if a person is dying and is going to die within a couple of days or hours than to speed up the process would seem humane. However, the choice should ultimately be up to the person and his/her family. If that person asks for it and they have been pronounced incurable than perhaps it is time to relieve them of their pain. But if there is a chance for that person, though they live in unimaginable pain, then perhaps their input should be partially ignored.

My Uncle died recently and his family had to make the choice to take him off life support because he was nothing but a vegetable in the end. Would this be considered murder or would it be considered relieving him of the life that had already left him? I think this should definitely be thought over carefully but I also think that sometimes to die is better to live. However is it within our power to decide who should die and who should live....I don't know.

I, myself, am still on the fence about euthanaisia (Euthenasia, euthenasia: what about youth in America?), but I do make a distinction between mercy killing and not going to excessive and obsessive lengths to prolong life.

My grandmother died about a year ago, and before she died, she went through several years of constant agony. She would have a bad spell, require intensive care, recover some, go through difficult therapy to regains some functionality (eating, talking, walking, dressing, etc.), then lose it all again. After several rounds, she was no longer the person she had been, was worn out, and simply did not see the point of traumatizing herself more to regain less and less functionality each time. The family, on the other hand, kept coaching her to push and keep trying. More and more invasive life support was required and each episode continued a downward spiral until she was fighting for less and less.

In this case, it was clear to me that 1) my grandmother was done living and had no quality of life and 2) that I would want to die myself in her situation. She continued to live for the family but the family was being (understandably) selfish. They were too concerned for their own loss to see (or balance) what it was doing to her. Many times, we get too caught up in grief to see clearly.

I think the right thing in this case and many others would have been to suspend life saving measures earlier on. There would have been no need to "euthanize" because her body was already dying. I think this is the case 99.9% of the time. When someone's time has come and there is no more point to a losing battle, say goodbye and let them go. If a person has something specific to live for (waiting for their first great-grandchild, making it until a wedding or other event, etc.) and they are fighting, then help them. But if the person themselves clearly wants to give up the battle, do not fight by proxy and do not make them feel guilty.

Mercy killing in a more direct sense often has the problem of being driven by outside, not inside, forces. Euthanasia can be a gruesome way for a family or caregiver to end support for an ailing relative. The patient themselves can even be guilted into asking for the action. This is someting that should be looked out for. Outright murder or assisted suicide should not just be an easy way out. It is always difficult to separate a desire for suicide from psychological issues: should a teen who has lost their love be allowed to "euthanize themselves"? I had a neighbor who did just that, but I would consider it wrong, or at least short-sighted and stupid.

The hypocratic oath says to "do no harm". I think doctors often forget this. Sometimes it means withholding treatments where there would be no point. I think it seldom means killing, although I would be hard pressed to argue where pain killers are given to ease pain where it also removes the person's ability to fight if the patient is obviously beyond help (e.g.: a wound to the liver on a battlefield).

[Corrected Typos]

Edited by evought, 16 October 2009 - 05:49 PM.

[mHelmy]

I agree to Feedbacker.

I will just be there with the person who's in pain, help him/her pray to God, until God decides if she/he will die or not.

[ScepterDonFetti]

Murder is murder whether it's killing a human, embryo, a suffering or suicidal human it's still murder.

God said: Thou shalt NOT Kill.

[kpxchunsa]

Interesting topic. Euthenasia is one of the most controversial topics at the moment. It really is a debate between pro-life and pro-choice groups.

Pro choice groups say the right to life is the choice of the individual and if they deem life to no longer be 'worth it' then they should have the choice to terminate it, especially if they are suffering from an debilitating illness with no chance of recovery and a slow deterioration. Quality is what they say determines the value of life.

Pro life groups say that life itself is valuable and nobody has a right to decide when to end it or not. Killing whether by choice or not is still killing.

Both these parties have valid arguments and its a difficult topic to debate. Personally I am on the fence. I hope it is an issue I will never personally have to face or make a choice on.

[dangerdan]

Euthanasia is clearly a problematic issues are cases are so individual and different that you could even base an opinion on the subjecting around every single case needing special consideration, akin almost to a trial, to determine whether it is acceptable. It is where the two coincide that will give the best social outcome. I look at the issue from a utilitarian viewpoint that aims to achieve maximum 'utility'.

I think the key considerations should be social consensus and morality.

A social consensus is required in order for any law regarding the subject to be obeyed. Therefore it is, in my opinion, what is socially acceptable on the issue that should ultimately be the law. If there is enough pro euthanasia opinion circulating, then there should be a referendum.

Secondly, from a moral point of view it is, in my opinion, to forcibly prolong life through the use of modern medical techniques when doing so causes undue or unnecessary pain, particularly when the person would have passed away without the use of such medicine. Obviously I do not disagree with modern medicine per sé but when it is being used solely to prolong life that would otherwise end, especially when causing pain, then is obviously a clear case for euthanasia.

Any euthanasia law would be problematic to implement and police, firstly we would need to be extremely careful in defining the criteria by which a person can qualify for euthanasia. There are serious issues regarding the need for screening the mental health of anyone considered for euthanasia to ensure any decision was not made non compos mentis (not of sound mind).