Mercy Killing Facts 2f726z

Mercy Killing Facts Starting with the basic definition, 'mercy killing' refers to the practice of terminating the person's life - by removing the life or by using a lethal drug, with the intention of relieving him of the pain and suffering that comes with his medical condition. On the basis of procedure involved, it can be categorized into two types ive mercy killing and active mercy killing. When the person is put to death by removing life (on going treatment, feeding, etc), it is referred to as 'ive mercy killing'. On the other hand, when the person is put to death by means of some lethal drug, it is referred to as 'active mercy killing'. Even though mercy killing is also referred to as 'euthanasia' or 'physician assisted suicide', the term euthanasia is more often used in context of active mercy killing or active euthanasia. One has to also take a note of the fact that this practice is categorized into three different types on the basis of the patient's consent. If euthanasia is carried out with the patient's consent, it is referred to as 'voluntary mercy killing'. If the same is carried out without the patient's consent i.e. against his will, it is referred to as involuntary mercy killing. There do exist cases wherein the patient is not able to give his consent because of the underlying medical condition (i.e. he may be brain dead or in vegetative state). In such cases, the decision is taken by the person's family on his behalf, and thus it is referred to as 'non-voluntary mercy killing'. Mercy Killing Pros and Cons In the United States, mercy killing debate came to light with Terry Schavio case - wherein the seven year long legal battle between Terry's husband and her parents came to an end with the Pinellas County court ordering the removal of feeding tube which had kept her alive since 1990. Terry - who had suffered a brain damaging cardiac arrest on 25th February, 1990, was kept alive with the help of a feeding tube for fifteen years. Eventually she died on 31st March, 2005, after her feeding tube was disconnected on 18th March, 2005. What followed was series of counter allegations, with her parents alleging that Terry's husband was responsible for her condition, and the removal of feeding tube was a conspiracy to kill her. Those lobbying for a ban of this practice often argue that such abuse of this concept cannot be ruled out, and therefore we as a civilized society need to do away with this practice. Those in favor of this practice - on the other hand, argue that a painless death is much better than a life of physical and emotional torture. All these euthanasia pros and cons have divided the world into two groups which find themselves at loggerheads today. Pro Mercy Killing Arguments Like everybody has the right to live, everybody should have the right to choose when to end their lives - this is one of the most prominent argument put forth by those who the practice of mercy killing. They further argue that it is as unfair and inhumane to leave a person to suffer in unbearable pain when there are no positive effects of medications and treatment on him. In such circumstances, opting for painless death can come easy on the patient as well as his family who have to

bear the pain of witnessing their loved one writhe in pain. In several cases, the patient is subjected to medications and treatment procedures - which have the tendency of causing severe side effects, in order to relieve him of pain. If that is justified why isn't mercy killing - especially when the chances of patient's survival are none, and he is suffering from immense physical or mental torture. A section of those in of mercy killing often ask whether it is rational to keep a person - who has no hopes of survival, alive on a system when our medical infrastructure is already under immense pressure. Those in favor of this practice also ask why mercy killing is not legalized when murder in defense is taken into consideration by law. Arguments Against Mercy Killing Those against this practice most often resort to ethics and morality in their tirade against it. They argue that mercy killing is an unethical practice because killing a person - for whatsoever reason it is, cannot be justified. Similarly, the concept is also widely opposed by medical professionals - who argue that the oath which they take when entering the medical field doesn't allow them to take part in killing of a person. Other than the arguments which are backed by morality and ethics, there also exist some arguments which are backed by logic. The family can abuse this concept - by resorting to murder in the garb of mercy killing, for their vested interests and this happens to be a logical argument that cannot be ignored. Previously, there have been cases wherein people have resorted to loopholes in the legal system to murder people with the intention of inheriting their wealth. At the same time, the family of a person may also resort to euthanasia to contain health care cost especially when they are very high. One has to take all these pros and cons of euthanasia into consideration when taking a stand on this issue. Even though the argument that the family may abuse this right seems quite convincing, it doesn't really hold ground as the chances of abuse are more if euthanasia is not legalized. More importantly, people have been blatantly using ive euthanasia even in countries wherein euthanasia is considered homicide. There is no questioning the fact that ive euthanasia is one of those dark secrets of medical field which will always be under wraps. On the contrary, if mercy killing is legalized there will be some monitoring authority to make sure that it is not abused.