Ethical Dilemma Mercy Killing is the right to kill ever justified

As science and technology are rapidly developing at an increasing rate there has been a visible difference in the lives of people as well. This rapid development has surely contributed to solving many of our problems but it has also giving rise to new issues and dilemmas which are a constant source of disagreement for many of us. One such dilemma our society faces is of euthanasia or mercy killing. For some its a source of relief in instances where pain becomes unmanageable for the patient and a good death seems to be the only way by which the person in pain can be given some peace.

However, there are others who find euthanasia just a different type of suicide and consider it an illogical option whatsoever is the condition of the patient. Thus we are living in a community in which people are confusing usefulness of life with ethical values. The people here consider human life as important as long it is serving some purpose like offering a career social life and joy. Hence, life at its own does not have any value. And any life that instead demands a greater amount of love, care and acceptance is seen as a burden. So the dilemma here is that is killing in any form is same as killing.

Mercy killing by definition is the simplest means to end life of any being that is in a state of chronic pain or is suffering from a disease from which restoring health is irrevocable. Thus, to end the misery of the being suffering from such a condition mercy killing proposes that the suffering should be ended by ending life in a less painful manner. Such suffering is brought to an end by either a lethal injection or withdrawal of medical assistance being given. Here the motive is to end the life of the being that has now become dependent on means other than him or her and this is for his or her assumed advantage.

There are various types of mercy killing activities that are being conducted worldwide. There is one scenario where people themselves made a request to end their life. This situation is called voluntary euthanasia where the dying persons consent is taken. Another scenario here is that an individual facing suffering neither makes any such request to end their life nor do they give their consent. This situation is called involuntary euthanasia. And finally there exists another form of mercy killing where a person makes a request that they do not want to take advantage of euthanasia but still is given such a situation is that of non-voluntary euthanasia where life becomes not good enough for existence. And some other human being tries to act like God and becomes the decision maker of some other human beings fortune.

Hence, there are those who in every scenario consider it immoral to kill someone even the extremely sick and the elderly ones. For the elderly ones, they say deserve our attention and care just like they had bestowed our life with necessities and prospects of growth and success. And now in a situation when they are suffering then one should not become materialistic and discard them by treating as a burden. Where as for the ones who are actually experiencing irrepressible physical pain, alleviating their pain by eliminating their life does not seem to be a senile thing to do.

To counter these arguments made by those who are in against the usage of euthanasia is that the right thing to do in favor of the humanity is to allow a more widespread and easier access of pain controlling medicine across places where people are euthanized. These medicines can to a greater extent control the degree of pain being suffered by the patients. The reason any pain controlling medicine fails to function is that the medical practitioners are insufficiently trained and are probably using inadequate and obsolete means to stop the sufferings of their patients.

If these people and their support systems begin to offer more equipped services and up-to-date means of pain reducing medicines then it can be guaranteed that the need for euthanasia may never arise. So the need here is to provide the best possible pain reducing medication and that too at costs which are bearable by rich and poor alike and dont make one feel that keeping someone alive is a burden. A major risk that is associated with the conduct of euthanasia is pertinent to non-voluntary euthanasia. Here a lot of healthy people tend to lose their lives because someone else misused the right to mercy kill due to support of the system that supports mercy killing.

Hence, there is a substantial proportion of those who misuse this exercise and conduct planned murders for their personal good. The critics of euthanasia say that even if the elderly are continued to be slaughtered like this in name of mercy killing. Then for the benefit of a few people the society would be indirectly legalizing genocide. Euthanasia has every single chance of being used against not just the terminally ill or elderly but also to get rid of any unwanted people.

Hence, in any scenario the critics of mercy killing view it as an unjustifiable when people say that by employing euthanasia one is indeed maintaining the honor of human life by giving a person a chance to choose a peaceful death over a life which is far away from becoming peaceful. And the critics also say it is debasing the loved ones to make them feel like a burden on others due to their ill health. Such an action is hazardous for the self respect of any individual as no one would want to be treated as an object of inconvenience rather than a loved one in poor state of health.

This dilemma can only be solved if the people are able to understand that there is a major difference between actively or passively taking someones life and letting nature itself complete its course of action. If we present this argument in a perspective of the religions around the world then beyond any doubt all of them stand united against barbaric action by humans. Religions believe that life has been given to humans to fulfill some purpose and is a blessing not a curse. And hence, no individual on their own or on any one elses part has no authority to cut short anyone elses life. As life gives every individual absolute right to liberty, choice and happiness and if these rights are to be exercised then a person should be given the right to live not the right to die. As that is the role which nature and God not human beings have to play.


Post a Comment