The term euthanasia is fairly broad in scope, which is why it has been divided into “allowing someone to die”, “mercy killing”, and “mercy death” (Thiroux, 214). The practices of “allowing someone to die”, “mercy killing”, and “mercy death” (all forms of euthanasia) are acceptable and good in cases where either the party involved has requested such services or evidence has been presented to support the belief that the party involved would request such services if able. While most people may approve of “allowing someone to die” or “mercy death” in which the patient in question has taken act

If there are so many arguments against “mercy death” why do we even consider it at all? It is a form of individual freedom, an expression of our personal liberties. Choosing our own time to die has to be one of the most personal choices one can make in his or her life. There is also an argument of human rights versus animal rights. If we are willing to put animals “out of their misery” (not even upon request I might add) then why should humans, of higher intelligence and respect in many cases not be allowed the same consideration? We should grant our fellow man (or woman) the same mercy as we grant our pets. Luckily, there is some legislation in activity and pending involving situations like this.

“1) Unreceptivity and unresponsiveness

er of things and prolong the inevitable imagining it is for good. If this man wishes to die, he has asked for no more help, what is the wrong in giving him just that? By saying that allowing him to die is wrong or, possibly even against the law, the only result is prolonged suffering of this man, prolonged trauma to the family and extensive funds put into his continued care and for what? So he can live a few more days, maybe months, in a state of pain he never wanted anyway.

The process of “mercy killing” implies no voluntary action on the part of the person in question or victim. It is an active termination of life assumed to be “meaningless”. In cases of “mercy killings“, the person involved has had no say, which makes “mercy killings” the most controversial aspect of euthanasia. In most instances the victim is in a coma or a persistent vegetative state. It is unknown if he or she will ever wake up and usually, if he or she ever does they will most likely receive severe brain damage and will not lead a life at all similar to their past. In a case where “mercy killing” comes into question, it is necessary to determine what the patient WOULD have requested if he or she were able. Once someone has been identified as being “brain dead” or has suffered brain damage upwards of 60% they can barely be considered “alive”. Their body may function, but they are unaware of the people around them. Much confusion concerning “mercy killing” revolves around the definition of “brain death”. When the brain is completely and permanently dead the patient becomes simply a body. In 1968 an ad hoc committee was formed at the Harvard Medical School. Their purpose was to determine criteria for determining “brain death“. It is as follows:

Many of the arguments against mercy killing are the same as the arguments against any of the other forms of euthanasia. There is the religious interference factor, the fear of the power people may feel they possess, all common arguments. One of the strongest fears about “mercy killing” is that it will lead to “God” complexes in doctors, leaving them responsible for determining who should live and for how long. With this power the value of life might become negligible and much more insignificant. Why bother save someone who’s going to die anyway? Or why save the drunk driver who killed an entire family? If these doctors are allowed to just “unplug” the machines and not face consequences what is to keep them under control? The counter to this says that one has to realize that doctors do not have this kind of freedom. In any decision related to “unplugging” of devices the family or appointed representative of the victim is involved; research is done to investigate what kind of person this patient was before the accident and what he or she might have wanted in this kind of situation.

Some topics in this essay:
Jack Kevorkian, Allow Die, Act California, Newsweek Magazine, Euthanasia Greek, MERCY KILLING, Mercy Killing, Medical School, ALLOWING DIE, Death Dignity, “mercy death”, “mercy killing”, “allowing die”, “allowing die” “mercy, die” “mercy, active termination, party involved, allowing die, terminally ill, mercy killing, brain damage, die” “mercy killing”, death “mercy death“, interfering god’s plan, physician assisted suicide,