Mercy killing Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Mercy killing - Essay ExampleThe terminology favor killing on the other hand refers to someone taking a direct action to terminate the intent of a patient without permit from the patient. The decision to take such an action is usually made on the assumption that the patients life is no longer contentful or that if the patient was in a position to say so, he would express his desire to die (Padilla 219). The distinction between lenity ending and mercy killing is that mercy remainder is voluntary and is conducted with the permission of the patient and often at his request while mercy killing is involuntary and does not involve the patients permission or request. None of the actions is more morally acceptable than the other and arguments exist against these actions. Many arguments used against self-destruction are applicable to mercy death to some extent but the issues surrounding mercy death are complicated by the fact that another person has to do the killing (Padilla 227). I f patients who request for mercy death would wait to see the results of medical therapy and acquirement, they would probably ad bonnie to their situations and change their minds about dying. Mercy killing is also complicated by the fact that it is done without the concur of the patient and this is a violation of the order of Life Principle, no one has the right to decide whether a persons life is worthy. tender beings also have rights and they are not the same as those of animals and no matter what science may say no human beings being is merely an animal. Question 2 What are the arguments for and against mercy death? Is it morally justifiable in some situations? The first argument about mercy death is that populate who are suffering and in pain are usually in a state of alarm and depression and therefore cannot simply make rational decisions, if such patients were to wait and see what medical science and therapy can do for them they would probably adjust to their situation and change their minds about dying. The second argument states that just as we are generally willing to put animals out of their misery when they suffer, we should do the same for human beings but the rights of human beings to live and die are not the same as those of animals. Western religions halt that human beings have immortal souls and even non religious humanists talk about the human spirit or personality stating that it should be accorded greater respect than the mere physical self (Padilla 230). Mercy killing is a direct violation of the Principle Value of Life mainly because it involves taking the life of an innocent person, take is murder regardless of the motive and this is cemented by the fact that patients have not or cannot give their consent for the termination of their lives. The domino argument states that because the consent of patients cannot be obtained, an outside decision about the worth, value and meaning of a patients life has to be made but this is a dange rous walk out because no one has the right to decide if a persons life is worthy, has value or is meaningful. There is also a possibility of finding cures in future and patients could therefore continue living. In cases of financial and emotional burdens to the family but finances and emotions should not be determining factors where human life is concerned. both mercy death and mercy killing are not morally justifiable because humane alternatives for both mercy death an