persuasive essay about mercy killing

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Mercy killing debate: should euthanasia be legalized?

Source: This image was created for netivist.org. If you want to use it you simply need to attribute it by linking to this page or to https://netivist.org . Thanks

Many new cases of physician-assisted suicide or mercy killing are emerging in Western countries. Some of them have regulated it. Do you think euthanasia should be legalized? Under what circumstances? Do we have the right to die as we choose?

Mercy Killing Debate

Euthanasia or physician- assisted suicide , also know as mercy killing , is becoming a prominent public debate . The implications of legalizing assisted suicide are wide-ranging from a medical , legal, political and ethical point of view.

The term euthanasia means "good death" in Greek. With the progress of medicine in multiple domains (e.g. anesthesiology, pain medicine) came the problem of the decision of death. Some countries, like for instance Belgium, The Netherlands, and some states in the USA, including New Mexico, Montana, Oregon and Vermont, have passed laws allowing voluntary euthanasia. But the legality of choosing the moment of death is an extremely controversial subject because it appeals to personal views on ethics and morality and is highly emotional and linked to religious beliefs. Most countries still consider euthanasia a crime . Some people consider allowing euthanasia to risk opening a slippery slope where killing may become more common, and risk the killing of people misinformed or against their will. These people also worry about the risk of killing any person with some sort of suffering (e.g. mental disability, physical handicap). Supporters of euthanasia claim it is an individual right to decide when to die, to keep control of their fate when it is still possible.

Types of euthanasia

There are different types of euthanasia according to whether the will of the patient has been expressed.

Voluntary euthanasia : to intentionally end the life of someone who asked for it to relieve physical pain and psychological suffering. It can be considered as assisted suicide. Patient gives informed consent. An official signed document in which one declares one wants to be euthanized.
Non-voluntary euthanasia : consent of the patient is unavailable. Usually family members are asked about the possible will of the patient as well as their own wish.
Involuntary euthanasia is against the patient’s will and is illegal, considered as murder, in most countries.

Euthanasia can also be divided into:

Passive euthanasia: when the family or medical staff withhold life support (e.g. medication, respiratory machine, feeding or liquids) from the patient.
Active euthanasia: when the patient is administered (e.g. injected) a lethal dose of any chemical substance to end her/life.

And you? Do you support mercy killing ? Should euthanasia be legalized? Before voting and commenting you may want to consider the pros and cons of legalizing physician-assisted suicide (see below).

Watch this video on the mercy killing debate

Euthanasia pros and cons

Dying with dignity: some people are deeply sick, postrated and unable to do even the most basic human actions, such as eating, changing clothes, washing themselves or using the toilets. They often find their state degrading and humilliating and may prefer to die with dignity and stop being a burden to those around them.
End to human suffering: people with terminal illness and no chance of recovery often suffer great physical pain and emotional distress. Ending their lives, if they wish so, can spare them from an unnecessary suffering.
Legal certainty: according to research conducted in the Netherlands, regulating euthanasia has improved legal certainty and has contributed to the carefulness of assisted suicide.
Healthcare spending: keeping alive terminal patients who are suffering and not able to recover is also very expensive and detracts medical resources from other patients who could heal or need treatments. Families of the patients who want to end their lives may also face bills which can very negatively affect their finances.
Autonomy and self-determination: opposing to someone's will of ending her/his life goes against that person freedom and right of deciding on their future.
Moral and ethical problems: physician assisted death clashes with religious beliefs. Many religions state that human life end should not be decided by people but by God.
Misunderstandings and errors: there are cases in which doctors have wrongfully diagnosed a terminal disease or have thought that a patient is without hope of recovery. However, medicine evolves and cures may be found. Some new treatments may become effective were others failed. So terminating someone's life even with her/his consent may be a mistake.
Legalizing murder: regulating euthanasia for some extreme cases may mean crossing a line. It has been argued that this could be a slippery slope which could end up with the legalization of an increasing number of cases for ending a life for utilitarian reasons.
Abuse: if euthanasia is legal, there may be an incentive to exaggerate the negative condition of patients so that the family decides to "disconnect" them so that the hospital or insurance company saves money.
Complexity: even if countries decide to legalize euthanasia, there may be great difficulties in agreeing with the cases and situations in which these mercy killings are acceptable and with the legal procedures that should be respected.

Taking all these pros and cons into consideration and the experience in the territories where it has been legalized, what would you recommend doing?

You may also want to participate in our debates on the legalization of cannabis , prostitution , and same sex marriage .

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Rank

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

What is netivist?
Entertainment
Top Debates
Top Campaigns
Provide Feedback

Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Mercy killing, works cited.

My Grandfather had been in the hospital for eight months whereby, visits to the hospital were of the most painful experiences that I have ever had; having known that, he was undergoing extreme mental and physical pain, of which I had little control over. To make it worse, I had painfully watched his health deteriorate day by day, bringing him to a state of hopelessness, with only one primary thing to live and endure; pain. Although we lived with hope, the doctors had made their verdict, because they had done all that was possible with no success. My prayers for his recovery seemed unanswered because; sometimes I could watch him hopelessly as he screamed loudly, due to the extreme pains that he enduring, with no help to offer. In addition, as I watched my grandfather closely, I could confirm that the once enthusiastic face was gradually losing interest in life. This worried me very much, as his ailment had reduced his life into a shell of suffering, making him loose hope and self-esteem. Sometimes the situation was too much for us to bear because, even recognizing his friends, and relatives (including me, his favorite grandson), was a problem. Hence, to end his long-suffering, we had to take the “cruelest” option of terminating his life, it being the only remedy we had. Surely, this was another most painful thing I have had to endure in my life, for I stood there helplessly as the doctor cut off his oxygen supply. As a transition to his new form of life, he struggled and finally stiffened with a weak smile on his face. Although five years have passed since then, the memories are still vivid in me; for I knew and I have always known that we made the right decision for him.

Mercy killing is a mechanism of relieving both the sufferers and their families from extreme pain and anguish; them being witnesses of such suffering (Grisez and Boyle, 509). Frankly speaking, my grandfather was enduring extreme mental and physical pain, which had left him a hopeless being, with one thing to live for; pain. This made me to question the purpose his living because; he was struggling to breathe even with oxygen tubes in his nostrils; hence a clear indication that we were forcing him to live against his wishes. In addition, our forcing him to live is questionable because; for which purpose was he living, when he could not even indentify himself, and had to endure such extreme pains? Considering this, it is not wrong for one to argue that, all we did was for selfish gains; that is, our fear of losing him overlooked the great pain that he was undergoing, as we forced him to continue living; hence, the importance of mercy killing.

Primarily mercy killing or euthanasia involves the ending of someone’s life either willingly or unwillingly. The entire process is painless to sufferers who are in a vegetative state; a case that is common in most medical scenarios, where medics; primarily doctors, have expressed no hopes of recovery of such patients. In addition, doctors mostly perform this operation to patients in extreme pain; hence, a merciful way of ending their anguishes and pain. For medics to carry out mercy operation, they have first to seek consent from such patients; if they are at a position of deciding for themselves, failure of which their relatives’ or close allies’ decisions take precedence.

Owing to the fact that, medics recommend this process to individuals who are experiencing extreme pain and suffering, and because it is not bad for one to endure emotional pain resulting from suffering of their loved ones, it is true that individuals sometimes make this process unnecessarily longer to people whose resting time has come. Therefore, although such individuals will have more time to see their loved ones, this increases the duration of emotional and mental suffering, and the magnitude of pain to sufferers. Further, it is important for all individuals to note that, such practices are not only delusional; hence making individuals to forego important aspects of their lives, but also they have many negative consequences, for example, trauma, family and occupational associated problems (Grisez and Boyle, 511).

To some extent, individuals’ lives can stop due to the failure or unwillingness to execute mercy killing. This is because; although such individuals may be sure that, it is that such suffering-loved ones have minimal chances of living, in most cases, they accept the reality of the situation after the demise of their loved ones, whom they never wanted to die. As the physiological fight or flight theory postulates, the human body has a natural control mechanism; mentally, physically, and emotionally energized; hence, giving individuals a way of dealing or adapting to environmental variations. In any life scenario, a change of environment encompasses change of circumstances in individuals’ lives hence, altering the common used to environments. Failure by individuals to adapt to such changes is a great impediment on individuals’ coping potentialities; hence leading to stress, which may result to dejection. Such scenarios are prevalent in most death-postponed cases, due to the fear of executing the mercy killing concept, despite the fact that, such cases direct individuals’ time and emotional resources towards a fruitless cause. In addition, the more individuals endeavor to cherish memories of their dead loved ones, the more their desperation worsens hence, leading to many negative impacts on individuals’ lives, more so the suffering. For example, for the suffering, such effects can commence with simple breathing problems, which becomes complex later on. Although medics always do anything at their disposal to save lives for instance, feeding of patients through the nostrils, whose failure leads to use of the most expensive pure oxygen, they fail to realize that, they are wasting resources on lives they are very sure they cannot save. On the other hand, analysis of the hospital environments, which includes an array of foot and air tubes and other patient supporting machinery, are clear evidences of holding on to a life that is desperate to rest. This fact is compounded by the expensiveness of the process not only to the suffering, but also to the supporting families hence, doing more damage than good (Heifetz and Mangel, 197)

Yes, to some extent the argument against mercy killing that, this process terminates one’s life, something that only God should do is right however, their notion lacks a base of expression. This is because; avoiding the practice primarily means that, individuals must use any artificial means to preserve life, a life that should rest naturally. Therefore, this causes one question; why should individuals aim to prolong life; something, which they lack control on? No wonder, such efforts are always fruitless, and only lead to desolation, disappointments, loss resources, and suffering. This is the case because, death is not a clinical thing, but rather a natural process (Manning, 99)

On the other hand, considering the fact that, most suffering individuals have to endure extreme pain, with surety of death in the end, majority of such individuals “die” even before their natural deaths. Therefore, mercy killing never denies somebody life, but rather the problem is these individuals’ inability to accept reality. In addition, considering the quantity of resources wasted in sustain such patients, it practically beats logic, because such families can use such resources on constructive things; primarily because, there is no need of family accumulating debts in the name of saving an un-savable life. In this regard, it is important for individuals to note that, life never lasts forever; hence, the importance of cherishing every day and concentrating in saving savable lives for example, through resuscitation; a fact that mercy killing supports (Manning, 101)

Another argument against Mercy Killing, which is refutable, is that, majority of individuals use Mercy killing as a mechanism of eliminating family members they do not cherish. This lacks some concepts of logicalness; hence, individuals cannot apply it as a rationale to oppose this practice. This is because; egocentrism is generally individualistic, a fact that mercy killing never encompasses. In addition, mercy killing is a practice done out of love and care for loved ones as mechanism of ending their suffering. On the other hand, it is important to note that, majority of individuals who prefer this practice value their loved ones to whatever they own; hence, through saying that they should use that money to prolong life is wrong, because, such prolonging is of more harm than good. This is common in life, because such efforts are always fruitless and more painful than mercy killing. Considering this, antagonists of this concept are selfish, because they are prolonging suffering of individuals; they claim to love (Jenkins, 195)

In conclusion, mercy killing is one of the most controversial concepts in nature. Although some individuals oppose the concept, most of them fail to recognize a few realties about it namely; medics execute the process in extreme suffering situations, where the hopes or recovery never exists. In addition, postponing one’s life wastes time, money, and it has other negative impacts to both the suffering individuals and their remaining families; which include depression, trauma, family and occupational problems. On the other hand, although the concept elicits many moral issues, it practically beats logic to preserve moral egos, rather than embracing reality. This is because, man has no power of prolonging life, but rather, avoiding mercy killing will imply that, individual love seeing others suffer.

Grisez, Germain, and Boyle, Joseph. Life and death with liberty and justice: a contribution to the euthanasia debate. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979.Print.

Heifetz, Milton and Mangel, Charles. The Right to Die. Toronto: Longman Canada Limited, 1975.Print.

Jenkins, Joe. Contemporary moral issues; Examining Religions Series, (4 th e.d.). Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Publishers, 2002.print

Manning, Michael. Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: killing or caring? Macarthur Boulevard, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1998.Print.

Law & Ethics: When the End Justifies the Means
The Fundamental Nursing Ethical Principles
Eating Disorders: A Session With Sufferers of Obesity and Anorexia
Mercy Medical Center Overview
Autoimmunity, Its Effect on the Body and Methods of Its Treatment
Problem of Death and Bereavement: Case Studies
Active Euthanasia: Ethical Dilema
Euthanasia: Advantages and Disadvantages
Inequalities in Health Care Services for Children
Euthanasia: Every For and Against
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, March 13). Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-should-be-encouraged/

"Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged." IvyPanda , 13 Mar. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-should-be-encouraged/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged'. 13 March.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged." March 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-should-be-encouraged/.

1. IvyPanda . "Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged." March 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-should-be-encouraged/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Mercy Killing Should Be Encouraged." March 13, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/mercy-killing-should-be-encouraged/.

1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology

Philosophy, One Thousand Words at a Time

Euthanasia, or Mercy Killing

Author: Nathan Nobis Category: Ethics Word count: 1000

Listen here

Sadly, there are people in very bad medical conditions who want to die. They are in pain, they are suffering, and they no longer find their quality of life to be at an acceptable level anymore.

When people like this are kept alive by machines or other medical treatments, can it be morally permissible to let them die ?

Advocates of “passive euthanasia” argue that it can be. Their reasons, however, suggest that it can sometimes be not wrong to actively kill some patients, i.e., that “active euthanasia” can be permissible also. [1] This essay reviews these arguments.

1. Passive Euthanasia

Denying that passive euthanasia is ever morally permissible suggests that we must always do everything we can to try to keep someone alive, even if they are miserable, want to die, and say so. To many, that’s just cruel. [2]

Passive euthanasia can be directly supported by both consequentialist (or utilitarian) and Kantian ethics. [3]

For the consequentialist, the patient being out of their misery is a better consequence for them , and overall, than their staying alive: this decreases the total amount of pain and unhappiness in the world, and no other choice would produce more good, for them or overall.

For a Kantian, letting them die respects their autonomy or decisions about matters that profoundly affect their own lives: this respects them as “ends in themselves,” whereas forcing them to live treats them as a “mere means” toward our ends, not their own.

Passive euthanasia can also be supported by stating conditions when it can be OK to let someone die. We begin with an ‘if’ and develop a principle:

(a) someone is dying, and (b) is in horrible pain and suffering, and (c) that pain and suffering cannot be relieved, and (d) that person wants to die and says so, and (e) informed, thoughtful and caring people agree that the person would be better off no longer living . . ,

then it can be permissible to let that person die. [4]

Passive euthanasia, then, can be justified in a variety of ways.

2. Active Euthanasia

To see why active euthanasia might be permissible, we begin by reflecting on why passive euthanasia might be OK: it gets people out of their misery and respects what they want for their own lives.

We then observe that these goals can often be pursued more directly and immediately by, say, giving them an overdose of pain-killing medications. Letting people die can take a long time, and that time might be full of unwanted suffering. Killing people, when they want to be killed, achieves their goals, more quickly.

So, it seems that if passive euthanasia can be permissible, so can active.

3. Objections

There are many objections to this reasoning. Some concern euthanasia in general.

3.1. Some claim that pain can always be controlled and so there is never a need to euthanize anyone. However, this insistence that pain can always be made bearable is, sadly, not true.

3.2. Some argue that “miracles” are possible – there’s always a chance that someone recovers – and so euthanasia is wrong. But making important decisions on very unlikely chances is often unwise. Most interestingly though, euthanasia would never prevent a miracle, especially one of divine origins.

Further objections claim there are important differences between active and passive euthanasia, making passive permissible but active wrong.

3.3. Some argue that it’s always wrong to intentionally kill someone, so active euthanasia is wrong. In reply, while it’s, at least, nearly always wrong to kill people, this is arguably because people usually want to live and do not have lives full of pain. Perhaps killing can be justified when this is not the case. [5]

3.4. Some argue that allowing active euthanasia might put us on a “slippery slope” to murdering people who want to live. But this hasn’t happened where active euthanasia is allowed, since we do and would have safeguards to lessen this possibility, as we do with other things that might lead to bad results if misused.

3.5. Some argue that there are important moral differences between allowing something to happen and doing something or because killing someone and letting them die are profoundly different, and so passive and active euthanasia should be judged differently. But consider this case:

An aunt will inherit lots of money if her five-year-old nephew dies. She plans to drown him in the bathtub and make it look like an accident. He just started his bath; she’s on her way to the bathroom to drown him. She opens the bathroom door and is delighted to see that he has slipped in the bathtub and is drowning. She watches, ready to push him under if he steadies himself and saves his own life. But, as her luck would have it, he drowns; she never touches him throughout the ordeal. She inherits the money. [6]

If she claimed that she didn’t “do anything,” she did : she stood there, and doing nothing is doing something . And letting someone die can be as bad , or nearly as bad , and perhaps sometimes even worse than killing someone [7] : indeed, a way to kill someone is to let them die. So these distinctions are, at least, not clear.

3.6. A final concern is that especially if active euthanasia were allowed, some people could be wrongfully killed. This is possible: some people might wrongfully break (potentially good) rules. But we cannot ignore that if euthanasia is not allowed, it might be that some people could be wrongly kept alive. Which wrong is more likely? Which wrong is worse?

4. Conclusion

While death is, arguably, usually bad for the person who dies, the goal of euthanasia is to make this less bad: the word euthanasia means a “good death.” These issues are important, and not just for people currently facing hard choices about death. None of us knows what will happen to us: at any time, an accident or illness might force these issues upon us, and so we should engage them more deeply, now. [8]

[1] The discussion and arguments here are largely based on James Rachels ’ (1941-2003) famous and widely-reprinted article “ Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80 .

[2] The discussion here concerns what’s called voluntary euthanasia, where a person wants to die and says so. There are other types of euthanasia though. Non-voluntary euthanasia involves an individual who neither wants to die nor wants to live, e.g., someone who has been unconscious for a long time, say in a coma, and we have good reason to believe that consciousness will never return: they currently don’t literally want anything and we usually don’t know what they would have wanted , since people usually don’t discuss this. What is sometimes called involuntary “euthanasia” involves someone who wants to live and says so . If such a person is let die or killed, this is not euthanasia: in all or nearly all cases, this is murder or wrongful killing , and so won’t be discussed further here.

These definitions cover most actual cases of euthanasia, but they aren’t perfect. First, it could happen that someone said that, if they were to fall into a permanent coma, they would very much want their body to be kept alive for as long as possible, but nobody knows this is what they wanted: if they are euthanized, is that in voluntary or non -voluntary? It could also happen that someone wants to die, but has no way of communicating that (suppose they have an extreme form of “ locked-in syndrome ,” with eye paralysis too, so they cannot even blink out messages): if they are euthanized, is that voluntary or non-voluntary? These cases are unclear, given the characterizations above, as are further possibilities of someone who wants to die but nobody knows that and someone who wants to live but nobody can tell .

Non-human animals who are judged to have a poor quality of life due to serious health problems are often (actively) euthanized: is this best considered a form of non-voluntary euthanasia, or potentially a different type of voluntary euthanasia? These animals have some current wants or desires, unlike a coma patient, but probably don’t have a specific want or desire to die, unlike in typical voluntary euthanasia cases.

[3] Consequentialism and Kantianism can be used to support euthanasia (although Kant himself might have opposed it: Kant’s own judgments on many moral issues and the positions on moral issues that his theories arguably support sometimes diverge). But these theories do urge us to be very cautious about bringing about someone’s death, including our own.

Consequentialists would, and should, urge especially anyone who doesn’t have a challenging medical condition but wishes to die to seek counseling and assistance to help find happiness and fulfillment: in most cases, this would be better than death for that person and for promoting overall happiness. “ It gets better ,” the saying goes: it’s possible for someone to be euthanized (passively or actively), or commit suicide (if someone euthanizes themselves, this is a type of suicide; if they need assistance to do this, this is assisted suicide ), whose death is not in their own best interest or contributes to the greatest overall good. Indeed, some people have wished to die, have been prevented from ending their own life, come to appreciate their own life later, and then have been glad that they had not ended their life when they wanted to do so earlier. (However, it’s also sometimes true that people want to die, they live, and are eventually able to live what they report to be fulfilling lives, yet they still they wish they had died: Dax Cowart is a well-known case perhaps like this).

And Kantians don’t think that autonomy is unrestricted or limitless: just because we want something for ourselves doesn’t mean we should get it. Kantians firmly reject an attitude of “It’s your life, so do whatever you want with it,” since we have obligations to respect ourselves (and our future selves), given our value as persons, and this respect for ourselves could rule out some cases of euthanasia and suicide.

[4] The details of a principle like this, however, take us to harder questions about euthanasia, harder than those that arise in most circumstances: for examples, what if someone wants to die now but isn’t currently in horrible pain and suffering, or is expecting to die, but many years later after a very slow decline? Should anyone else have “say” over your own life or judge whether some pain and suffering is “horrible enough” for you to reasonably wish to die? If so, who? What if someone isn’t dying and doesn’t even have a bad medical condition but just finds their life not worth living and so wants to die (and so, say, plans to starve themselves to death or do other things that will result in their death)? These harder questions, and others, would need to be addressed for a complete defense of this or similar principles and any arguments based on them.

[5] Some might claim that their intention in any euthanasia is not to kill anyone: killing is an unintended consequence of their real intention, which might be to make the patient comfortable. If this makes sense, they might claim that they are not engaged in any intentional killing, so they aren’t violating any moral principle against intentional killing. This type of reasoning is related to what’s called the “Doctrine of Double Effect.”

[6] This case is from James Rachels. Here is another example that addresses the distinction between doing something versus allowing something to happen :

In a deep forest, hiking alone, Adam finds someone who has fallen into a deep pit. They ask him to throw them a rope so they can climb out. Adam doesn’t and they eventually starve to death. Adam learns of this on the news but feels fine since, he tells himself, “I didn’t do anything there. I did nothing wrong.”

To most, Adam clearly did something – he didn’t just allow something to happen – and he did something wrong: what he did , standing there not throwing the rope, was wrong.

[7] For tragic reflections that letting someone die can be worse than killing them, see Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .

[8] Thanks to Zach Blaesi, Taylor Cyr, Chelsea Haramia, Dan Lowe, Travis Rodgers and Dan Peterson for comments on and discussion of this essay.

Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die,” The New York Times , July 12, 2017 .

James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia,” New England Journal of Medicine 1975; 292: 78-80.

For Further Reading

Young, Robert, “Voluntary Euthanasia”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta .

Cholbi, Michael, “Suicide”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

Woollard, Fiona and Howard-Snyder, Frances, “Doing vs. Allowing Harm”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

McIntyre, Alison, “Doctrine of Double Effect”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) .

Related Essays

Applied Ethics by Chelsea Haramia

The Badness of Death by Duncan Purves

Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death by Frederik Kaufman

The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? by Gabriel Andrade

Deontology: Kantian Ethics by Andrew Chapman

Consequentialism by Shane Gronholz

Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice by G. M. Trujillo, Jr.

Can We Believe in Miracles? by Tomas Bogardus

Possibility and Necessity: An Introduction to Modality by Andre Leo Rusavuk

Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity by Kristin Seemuth Whaley

PDF Download

Download this essay in PDF .

Acknowledgments

This essay is an abbreviated version of a longer chapter of the same title published in Noah Levin, ed., Introduction to Ethics: An Open Educational Resource (NGE Press, 2019) . Nathan is grateful to Noah Levin for the occasion and inspiration to write these essays.

About the Author

Nathan Nobis is a Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, Atlanta, GA. He is the author of Animals & Ethics 101 , co-author of Thinking Critically About Abortion , a co-author of Chimpanzee Rights , and author or co-author of many other articles, chapters, and reviews in philosophy and ethics. www.NathanNobis.com

Follow 1000-Word Philosophy on Facebook and Twitter and subscribe to receive email notifications of new essays at 1000WordPhilosophy.com .

Share this:, 11 thoughts on “ euthanasia, or mercy killing ”.

Pingback: The Doctrine of Double Effect: Do Intentions Matter to Ethics? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Pingback: Psychological Approaches to Personal Identity: Do Memories and Consciousness Make Us Who We Are? – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Pingback: Are We Animals? Animalism and Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Pingback: Principlism in Biomedical Ethics: Respect for Autonomy, Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, and Justice – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Pingback: Personal Identity – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Pingback: Is Death Bad? Epicurus and Lucretius on the Fear of Death – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes - The Daily Idea
Pingback: Ethics: A Collection of Online Resources and Key Quotes – The Daily Idea
Pingback: Speciesism – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Pingback: Applied Ethics – 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology
Pingback: Online Philosophy Resources Weekly Update - Daily Nous

Comments are closed.

Essay: The Quality of Mercy Killing

I f it were only a matter of law, the public would not feel stranded. He killed her, after all. Roswell Gilbert, a 76-year-old retired electronics engineer living in a seaside condominium in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., considered murdering his wife Emily for at least a month before shooting her through the head with Luger as she sat on their couch. The Gilberts had been husband and wife for 51 years. They were married in 1934, the year after Calvin Coolidge died, the year after Prohibition was lifted, the year that Hank Aaron was born. At 73, Emily had Alzheimer’s disease and osteoporosis; her spinal column was gradually collapsing. Roswell would not allow her to continue life as “a suffering animal,” so he committed what is called a mercy killing The jury saw only the killing; they felt Gilbert had mercy on himself. He was sentenced to 25 years with no chance of parole, which would make him 101 by the time he got out. The Governor has been asked to grant clemency. Most Floridians polled hope that Gilbert will go free.

Not that there ever was much of a legal or practical question involved. Imagine the precedent set by freeing a killer simply because he killed for love. Othello killed for love, though his passion was loaded with a different motive. Does any feeling count, or is kindness alone an excuse for murder? Or age: maybe someone has to be 76 and married 51 years to establish his sincerity. There are an awful lot of old people and long marriages in Florida. A lot of Alzheimer’s disease and osteoporosis as well. Let Gilbert loose, the fear is, and watch the run on Lugers.

Besides, the matter of mercy killing is getting rough and out of hand. Nobody seems to use poison anymore. In Fort Lauderdale two years ago, a 79-year-old man shot his 62-year-old wife in the stairwell of a hospital; like Emily Gilbert, she was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. In San Antonio four years ago, a 69-year-old man shot his 72-year-old brother to death in a nursing home. Last June a man in Miami put two bullets in the heart of his three-year-old daughter who lay comatose after a freak accident. An organization that studies mercy killings says that nine have occurred this year alone. You cannot have a murder every time someone feels sorry for a loved one in pain. Any fool knows that.

Yet you also feel foolish watching a case like Gilbert’s (if any case can be said to be like another) because, while both feet are planted firmly on the side of law and common sense, both are firmly planted on Gilbert’s side as well. The place the public really stands is nowhere: How can an act be equally destructive of society and wholly human? The reason anyone would consider going easy on Gilbert is that we can put ourselves in his shoes, can sit at his wife’s bedside day after day, watching the Florida sun gild the furniture and listening to the Atlantic lick the beach like a cat. Emily dozes. He looks at her in a rare peaceful pose and is grateful for the quiet.

Or he dreams back to when such a scene would have been unimaginable: she, sharp as a tack, getting the better of him in an argument; he, strong as a bull, showing off by swinging her into the air–on a beach, perhaps, like the one in front of the condominium where old couples like themselves walk in careful slow motion at the water’s edge. Since the case became a cause, photographs of the Gilberts have appeared on television, she in formal gown, he in tails; they, older, in a restaurant posing deadpan for a picture for no reason, the way people do in restaurants. In a way the issue here is age: mind and body falling away like slabs of sand off a beach cliff. If biology declares war, have people no right to a pre-emptive strike? In the apartment he continues to stare at her who, from time to time, still believes they are traveling together in Spain.

Now he wonders about love. He loves his wife; he tells her so; he has told her so for 51 years. And he thinks of what he meant by that: her understanding of him, her understanding of others, her sense of fun. Illness has replaced those qualities in her with screams and a face of panic. Does he love her still? Of course, he says; he hates the disease, but he loves his wife. Or–and this seems hard–does he only love what he remembers of Emily? Is the frail doll in the bed an impostor? But no; this is Emily too, the same old Emily hidden somewhere under the decaying cells and in the folds of the painkillers. It is Emily and she is suffering and he swore he would always look after her.

He considers an irony: you always hurt the one you love. By what act or nonact would he be hurting his wife more? He remembers news stories he has read of distraught people in similar positions, pulling the plugs on sons and husbands or assisting in the suicides of desperate friends. He sympathizes, but with a purpose; he too is interested in precedents. Surely, he concludes, morality swings both ways here. What is moral for the group cannot always be moral for the individual, or there would be no individuality, no exceptions, even if the exceptions only prove the rule. Let the people have their rules. What harm would it do history to relieve Emily’s pain? A little harm, perhaps, no more than that.

This is what we see in the Gilbert case, the fusion of our lives with theirs in one grand and pathetic clichÃ© in which all lives look pretty much alike. We go round and round with Gilbert: Gilbert suddenly wondering if Emily might get better, if one of those white-coated geniuses will come up with a cure. Gilbert realizing that once Emily is gone, he will go too, since her way of life, however wretched, was their way of life. He is afraid for them both. In The Merchant of Venice Portia says that mercy is “twice blessed;/ It blesses him that gives and him that takes.” The murder committed, Gilbert does not feel blessed. At best, he feels he did right, which the outer world agrees with and denies.

Laws are unlikely to be changed by such cases: for every modification one can think of, there are too many loopholes and snares. What Gilbert did in fact erodes the whole basis of law, which is to keep people humane and civilized. Yet Gilbert was humane, civilized and wrong: a riddle. In the end we want the law intact and Gilbert free, so that society wins on both counts. What the case proves, however, is that society is helpless to do anything for Gilbert, for Emily or for itself. All we can do is recognize a real tragedy when we see one, and wonder, perhaps, if one bright morning 1934 Gilbert read of a mercy killing in the papers, leaned earnestly across the breakfast table and told his new bride: “I couldn’t do that. I could never do that.” –By Roger Rosenblatt

More Must-Reads from TIME

How Nayib Bukele’s ‘Iron Fist’ Has Transformed El Salvador
What Makes a Friendship Last Forever?
How to Read Political Polls Like a Pro
Long COVID Looks Different in Kids
What a $129 Frying Pan Says About America’s Eating Habits
How ‘Friendshoring’ Made Southeast Asia Pivotal to the AI Revolution
Column: Your Cynicism Isn’t Helping Anybody
The 32 Most Anticipated Books of Fall 2024

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today

Meet top uk universities from the comfort of your home, here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.

Verification Code

An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify

Thanks for your comment !

Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.

School Education /

Essay on Euthanasia: 100, 200 and 300 Words Samples

Updated on
Feb 22, 2024

Essay on Euthanasia: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics. School students and individuals preparing for competitive exams are given assigned topics like essays on euthanasia. The objective of such topics is to check the candidate’s perspectives and what punishment should be morally and legally right according to them.

If you are assigned an essay on euthanasia, it means your examiner or teacher wants to know your level of understanding of the topic. In this article, we will provide you with some samples of essays on euthanasia. Feel free to take ideas from the essays discussed below.

Master the art of essay writing with our blog on How to Write an Essay in English .

Table of Contents

1 Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words
2.1 Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide
2.2 Euthanasia Classification
3 Is Euthanasia Bad?

Essay on Euthanasia in 150 Words

Euthanasia or mercy killing is the act of deliberately ending a person’s life. This term was coined by Sir Francis Bacon. Different countries have their perspectives and laws against such harmful acts. The Government of India, 2016, drafted a bill on passive euthanasia and called it ‘The Medical Treatment of Terminally Ill Patient’s Bill (Protection of Patients and Medical Practitioners).

Euthanasia is divided into different classifications: Voluntary, Involuntary and Non-Voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is legal in countries like Belgium and the Netherlands, with the patient’s consent. On one side, some supporters argue for an individual’s right to autonomy and a dignified death. On the other hand, the opponents raise concerns about the sanctity of life, the potential for abuse, and the slippery slope towards devaluing human existence. The ethical debate extends to questions of consent, quality of life, and societal implications.

Also Read: Essay on National Science Day for Students in English

Essay on Euthanasia in 350 Words

The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward.

In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.

Euthanasia Vs Physician-Assisted Suicide

Euthanasia is the act of intentionally causing the death of a person to relieve their suffering, typically due to a terminal illness or unbearable pain.

Physician-assisted suicide involves a medical professional providing the means or information necessary for a person to end their own life, typically by prescribing a lethal dose of medication.

In euthanasia, a third party, often a healthcare professional, administers a lethal substance or performs an action directly causing the person’s death.

It is the final decision of the patient that brings out the decision of their death.

Euthanasia Classification

Voluntary Euthanasia

It refers to the situation when the person who is suffering explicitly requests or consents to euthanasia. A patient with a terminal illness may express his or her clear and informed desire to end their life to a medical professional.

Involuntary

It refers to the situation when euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, often due to the individual being unable to communicate their wishes.

Non-Voluntary

In this situation, euthanasia is performed without the explicit consent of the person, and the person’s wishes are unknown.

Active euthanasia refers to the deliberate action of causing a person’s death, such as administering a lethal dose of medication.

It means allowing a person to die by withholding or withdrawing treatment or life-sustaining measures.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are a defeat for all. We are called never to abandon those who are suffering, never giving up but caring and loving to restore hope. — Pope Francis (@Pontifex) June 5, 2019

Is Euthanasia Bad?

Euthanasia is a subjective term and its perspectives vary from person to person. Different cultures, countries and religions have their own set of values and beliefs. Life is sacred and gifted to us by god or nature. Therefore, intentionally causing death goes against moral and religious beliefs.

However, some people have raised concerns about the potential for a slippery slope, where the acceptance of euthanasia could lead to the devaluation of human life, involuntary euthanasia, or abuse of the practice. Some even argue that euthanasia conflicts with their traditional medical ethics of preserving life and prioritizing the well-being of the patient.

Today, countries like the Netherlands and Belgium have legalised euthanasia. In India, the USA and the UK, it is a punishable offence with varying sentences and fines. Euthanasia is a complex and controversial topic and creating a law against or for it requires a comprehensive study by experts and the opinions of all sections of society.

Ans: Euthanasia refers to the act of killing a person without any emotions or mercy. Euthanasia is an ethnically complex and controversial topic, with different perspectives and legal regulations on different topics.

Ans: The term ‘Euthanasia’ was first coined by Sir Francis Bacon, who referred to an easy and painless death, without necessarily implying intentional or assisted actions. In recent years, different countries have come up with different approaches, and legal regulations against euthanasia have been put forward. In 2016, the government of India drafted a bill, where euthanasia was categorised as a punishable offence. According to Sections 309 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit suicide and abetment of suicide is a punishable offence. However, if a person is brain dead, only then he or she can be taken off life support only with the help of family members.

Ans: Belgium and the Netherlands have legalised euthanasia. However, it is banned in India.

For more information on such interesting topics, visit our essay writing page and follow Leverage Edu.

Shiva Tyagi

With an experience of over a year, I've developed a passion for writing blogs on wide range of topics. I am mostly inspired from topics related to social and environmental fields, where you come up with a positive outcome.

Connect With Us

45,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..

Resend OTP in

Need help with?

Study abroad.

UK, Canada, US & More

IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More

Scholarship, Loans & Forex

Country Preference

New Zealand

Which English test are you planning to take?

Which academic test are you planning to take.

Not Sure yet

When are you planning to take the exam?

Already booked my exam slot

Within 2 Months

Want to learn about the test

Which Degree do you wish to pursue?

When do you want to start studying abroad.

January 2024

September 2024

What is your budget to study abroad?

How would you describe this article ?

Please rate this article

We would like to hear more.

Have something on your mind?

Make your study abroad dream a reality in January 2022 with

India's Biggest Virtual University Fair

Essex Direct Admission Day

Why attend .

Don't Miss Out

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Mercy killing - Free Essay Examples and Topic Ideas

Mercy killing, also known as euthanasia, is the act of intentionally ending the life of an individual to relieve their pain or suffering. This practice is controversial and often debated, as some argue that it is a compassionate decision that can end the suffering of terminally ill patients, while others argue that it is unethical and can lead to abuse. There are several types of mercy killing, including voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, and it is only legal in a few countries around the world.

📘 Free essay examples for your ideas about Mercy killing
🏆 Best Essay Topics on Mercy killing
⚡ Simple & Mercy killing Easy Topics
🎓 Good Research Topics about Mercy killing

Essay examples

Essay topic.

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Justice vs mercy
What is mercy killing?
The history of mercy killing
The definition of mercy killing
The ethical debate surrounding mercy killing
The Call For “Mercy”
Real ‘Angle of Mercy’ During the Crimean War
The religious debate surrounding mercy killing
The legal debate surrounding mercy killing
The medical debate surrounding mercy killing
Beg for Mercy Music and CD Cover Review
The psychological debate surrounding mercy killing
The sociological debate surrounding mercy killing
Case studies of mercy killing
1Famous cases of mercy killing
1Controversial cases of mercy killing
1How to mercy kill someone
1How to mercy kill an animal
1How to prevent mercy killings

FAQ about Mercy killing

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

Home / Essay Samples / Health / Euthanasia / So What Should We Do: a Controversy About Mercy Killing

So What Should We Do: a Controversy About Mercy Killing

Category: Health
Topic: Assisted Suicide , Euthanasia

Pages: 1 (620 words)

Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Weight Loss Essays

Hipaa Essays

Nervous System Essays

Cancer Essays

Respiratory System Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->