Non Voluntary Euthanasia

Mercy death or alternatively, mercy killing, popularly termed, ‘Euthanasia’ is the act or practice of killing or ending one’s life in order to kill someone painlessly and in a more dignified way. Such means are generally applicable in case of an individual suffering from incurable disease or a terminal illness via means of lethal dose or suspension of life support treatment.
Such a practice might as well occur as voluntary action by the consent of the patient or his relatives, however in the language of a protest it may be stated as assisting someone to commit suicide. Despite the exercise of one’s freewill or authorized consent killing is an offense by law and hence even mercy death should not escape that typecast. It is more convenient to condemn such a practice when it is viewed from the humanitarian angle and fingers are pointed to the ultimate consequence, which is death.
Classifications:
Mercy killing can be of three types – passive, non aggressive and aggressive. While passive euthanasia refers to withholding common treatments like antibiotics, drugs or surgery or giving a medication to relieve pain despite knowing that it might cause death, e.g. high doses of sleeping pills, non aggressive euthanasia deals with withdrawal of life support systems and hence is more controversial. Aggressive euthanasia is the most controversial of all since it refers to use of lethal substances or force to end lives. According to Rachel’s argument however, if the motive and consequences are the same then there is no difference between active (aggressive) or passive euthanasia. Euthanasia is also differentiated according to voluntary or non voluntary withdrawal. In case of voluntary withdrawal the person’s direct consent is taken. This is the least controversial of all in this classification. Non voluntary euthanasia refers to the application of the practice when there is an indirect consent from someone amongst the patient’s family or friends. Involuntary

References: 1. Battin, M.P., Rhodes, R., and Silvers, A., eds. (1998) Physician assisted suicide: expanding the debate. NY: Routledge 2 3. Blake, William (1794) “Divine Command Theory”, The Ancient of Days, available at: http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=christianity+euthanasia+divine+command+theory&meta= (accessed on January 29th , 2009) 4 5. Emanuel, E. J. (2004). "The history of euthanasia debates in the United States and Britain" in Death and dying: a reader, edited by T. A. Shannon. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 6. “Euthanasia and Judaism: Jewish Views of Euthanasia and Suicide”(2008), Religion Facts, available at: http://www.religionfacts.com/euthanasia/judaism.htm(accessed on January 27th , 2009) 7 8. Magnusson, R.S.(1997) “The sanctity of life and the right to die: social and jurisprudential aspects of the euthanasia debate in Australia and the United States” Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal (6:1), January 9 10. Magnusson, R.S.(1997) “The sanctity of life and the right to die: social and jurisprudential aspects of the euthanasia debate in Australia and the United States” Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal (6:1), January 11 12. “Schiavo case”(2007), The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Available at: http://www.bartleby.com/65/sc/Schiavcas.html (accessed on January 27th, 2008) 13 14. “The Hippocratic Oath”(1910), Harvard Classics Volume 38, P.F. Collier and Son, available at: http://www.euthanasia.com/oathtext.html (accessed on January 28th , 2008)