"merciful killing" do you agree with this???

Question

if yes or no,please explain.thanks!!

Answer 1

I have always always been against mercy killings. I've done numerous papers on Euthanasia (a more professional term for mercy killing) trying to convince other people that it is wrong as well. However, last Halloween, my grandmother went into the hospital with pnemonia. After being on a ventilator so she could breathe she was taken off of it the Monday before Thanksgiving. She nearly died because she was unable to breathe on her own. However, she held on until mid-December but continued to suffer due to her breathing problems. When she passed away it was almost a relief for me because I no longer had to watch her suffer. I began thinking differently about mercy killings. Depending on a person's own values, I now can see how people might think it is okay. My grandmother would never have wanted us to end her suffering because she was a very strong Christian woman who believed that God has a reason for everything. I, too, could never have allowed a mercy killing to take place because of my own Christian beliefs, killing/suicide is wrong. However, as I said before, based on a person's values (Athiest, perhaps) or those who believe they would be forgiven might choose assisted suicide to end their suffering.

Another huge problem that I have with assisted suicide is currently doctors are generally ones who perform the procedure by giving medications or using other means (this is known as active euthanasia whereas passive euthanasia is removing life support from someone). I do not believe that it is right to have a doctor perform it because they have taken an oath (Hippocratic Oath at gradutation from med. school) to save lives and not knowingly administer drugs which will harm or kill others. I believe that if euthanasia were to be legalized then their should be a specific "career" for people to perform mercykillings as opposed to a doctor, who is sworn to protect, to do the killing.

Answer 2

I do not think it should be the law of the land or be allowed under the law to be used by doctors,Health Care Providers as a decision they can make without having any responsibilty for it under the law as in some countries where its already the law of the land. if someone is really suffering intense PHYSICAL Pain and is Terminal that Absolutely No Procedure or Drug can alleviate their sufering then a Decision can be made to ease the individuals state of being-but should be a agreement between Health Care Provider (s) Legal Guardians(parent(s)Spouse< Legal Guardian). To have it be the law of the land gives Health Care Providers-Doctors etc too much power for they will also have then the power ,the decision to determine Quality of Life and were any abnormalities whatsoever detemined by Ultrasound etc of a fetus the doctor can terminate life or even Health Insurance Companies could have the power then to decide the aged person in the hospital state needs to be terminated ,a decision that could then be based on cost or even those with Disabilities whether mental or physical Agencies who lack funding to provide could terminate by deciding their quality of life isn't up to par. When to the contrary indviduals born with disabilities adapt and live full happy lives in spite of theur disabilities. These are the dangers of having it the law of the land. Have based my opinion on not just my own insight ,perception of mercy killing but also read about the the European Countries where it is law and of the advocates against it have pointed out the weaknesses and misuse in and of the law.

Answer 3

I think the patients family and doctor should be allowed to let someone die if they are never going to get better. It should be a fundamental right to humans as well as animals. We never let animals suffer until they die but people are left to suffer in pain, or brain-dead . The law should be that if 2 physicians agree that there is no hope for a patient ,the family you be called in and asked how they want to proceed.

Answer 4

Who is doing the killing, and who or what is getting killed? Most people would say there's a big difference between putting a dog out of its misery and putting a human out of her misery.
You can argue that people have a right to die at the time they choose. It's a difficult argument, but you can make it. Assisted
suicide is a very slippery slope (would it be all right to encourage people to commit suicide, say rotten criminals in prison?) This issue is one that demands a lot of careful thought.

Answer 5

it depends

-if u got the money to sustain the life support system
-if the patient is suffering for a very very long time without any sign of improvement

Answer 6

no.
a kill is a kill, mercy is mercy, i better dope the victim in extacy till death rather than kill it.

that mercy is only an excuse to legalized the kill in a way to find an easy answer.

Answer 7

no. no one has the right to take the life of another person away...