Mercy Killings

During the past decade, the debate about legalizing euthanasia has grown in many developed countries, including France. Medical journals have reflected this: surveys have assessed doctors' attitudes toward euthanasia and bioethics articles have discussed the pros and cons. Supporters of legalisation argue that euthanasia is a continuation of palliative care and that doctors must respect patients' autonomy, including a wish to die.1 The latter argument suggests that cultural differences shape opinions about euthanasia, because the emphasis on autonomy is greater in English speaking countries than in other developed countries.2 3
A profession is a job, grounded on a professed moral vision, mutually accepted by its members, be they academics, lawyers, or whoever.
Americans still trust their doctors, generally speaking. But whether we are patients or physicians, we just cannot make up our minds: Do we want technicians who have a monopoly on key skills? Or do we want what we used to have -- a vocation driven by moral vision?
Now is a good time to be reminded of the origins of the medical profession, because it started with these very questions. And unexpectedly, Hippocrates, the famous physician of antiquity, is in the news once again. Although almost nothing is known of his life and work, he gave birth to centuries of medical tradition in Western civilization.
Among recent developments, a group of distinguished doctors and ethicists, including some Christian leaders, have signed a modernized version of the famous oath. That may not be too much of a surprise, since Hippocrates was the father of all prolifers. On the twin life issues of abortion and euthanasia, he made the definitive statements: No, No.

Introduction

The present paper intends to portray the ethical dilemma of mercy killings for the medical professionals. The paper will present the positive and negative aspects of applying a mercy killing. Although this is not my professional area, I think