Mercy killing is defined as a kind of killing of one person by another. It can separate into willing and unwilling. Willing mercy killing means that patient agree doctor to stop healing them; Unwilling mercy killing means that to stop healing patient who couldn’t express their own idea such as babies and patients in a coma.
Supporters think that mercy killing can help patients’ family members to get rid of stress and reduce waste of social resources. Healing is a process which takes time and money. Patients’ family need to spend lots of money and spirit on healing and it creates a huge stress to them. Besides, the resources used on healing a person who are recognized to be dead in the future, such as beds, can help others who could be stay alive.
On the other hand, some critics think that mercy killing breaks the natural law and the spirit of religion. Natural law suggests us to protect life instead of killing and the spirit of religion explains that god gives us life and we have no rights to determine life and death. Although the patient accepts mercy killing, others should not help them to stop staying alive. Everyone should seek for alive but not death.
In my opinion, I support willing mercy killing. I agree with supporters that mercy killing can reduce the stress of taking care of patients and stay those resources for patients who can be healed. I think it is meaninglessness when patient is recognized to be dead in the future and still carrying painfulness to extend their life and so it will be better to use mercy killing but the significant point is the decision should be made by patient themselves. I think there is no right to determine a person’s life by another. Moreover, I think the explanations of breaking the natural law should not be used to consider the acceptableness of mercy killing because using medicine is already a kind of breaking natural law but it suggest us to use medicine to extend life.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document